Re: ACTION 20030502#3 gk: review 4.1 of OWL AS&S

At 12:48 07/05/2003 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote:

[...]


>Is this really a requirement?  Why is it necessary to map RDF to abstract 
>syntax?

You have incoming RDF/XML off the wire - is it Owl FULL, DL or Lite?

I was imagining that the abstract syntax might be a good abstraction on 
which to build an implementation.  So if your implementation is based on 
the abstract syntax, you'll need to translate incoming rdf/xml into that 
syntax for processing.

But I'm out of my depth here.  I just noticed that you'd looked at the 
rules one way round and wondered whether the inverse was significant.

>  I guess it's something to do with defining the semantics, but the OWL 
> AS&S spec claims to contain a semantics based directly on the RDF 
> triples.  I would assume the mapping (one way or the other) is needed as 
> part of a proof of equivalence, but I don't see any operational need to 
> map the RDF triples into OWL AS.
>
>>We need to decide what, if any, comment RDFCore wishes to make about this 
>>aspect of the OWL draft.
>>
>>Graham, what is your recommendation?
>
>Regarding the OWL AS->RDF triples mapping, I would say:
>
>(a) recommend slightly more explanation of the transformation table.  I 
>think the table itself is probably OK, possibly modulo small 
>adjustments.  I roughly sketched an example in my previous message, which 
>could certainly be improved, but which I hope suggests a modest level of 
>additional detail that would be helpful.
>
>(b) that said, I think it's probably OK for proceeding to Proposed REC, 
>but note that multiple interoperable implementations would be the 
>appropriate proof-of-the-pudding for moving further along the REC track.

OK - that sounds like no official comment from RDFCore is needed - or would 
you like WG endorsement?


>Regarding RDF->AS mapping, if this is really needed, I think more needs to 
>be said about the selection of triples from an RDF graph.  Once triples 
>are selected for a given transformation rule, I think applying the 
>transformation in reverse should be relatively straightforward in most cases.
>
>Since Jan has reviewed the entire document, I'd be interested to hear his 
>comments on whether I'm looking at the right aspects of this.

And from Jeremy.  Jan may be at xml europe.

Brian

Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2003 08:35:18 UTC