- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 20:36:09 -0500
- To: "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
pat hayes wrote:
>
> I have no problem with that, but I have always understood this to
> simply be an XML marker for the presence of OWL syntax in the RDF
> graph. Why do we need to say anything more than that? "owl:ontology"
> isn't in the graph, right? So its not in the namespace, and it has no
> semantics. If "owl:ontology" is in the OWL namespace, then we ought
> to say what an RDF triple which includes that name means.
I missed that. I had thought that once we decided that OWL was using RDF
syntax that <owl:Ontology rdf:about="foo"> was intended to be an RDF
typedNode. That is to say generate at least the following triple:
:foo rdf:type owl:Ontology .
...
>
> The difference is that one of them contains OWL syntax and the other
> does not. End of story.
That's the problem, since in OWL Full, as in RDF, we might subClassOf and
subPropertyOf essentially _anything_ then it is indeed possible to write
something that is intended to be an ontology (whatever that may be, let's
use the English definition) that doesn't use any actual terms from the OWL
namespace.
Suppose
ex:myClass rdfs:subClassOf owl:Class .
ex:myOnt rdfs:subClassOf owl:Ontology .
and then an 'instance' document
<rdf:RDF>
<ex:myOntology rdf:about="">
</ex:myOntology>
<ex:myClass rdf:ID="foo">
<rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="...#yourFoo"/>
</ex:myClass>
</rdf:RDF>
> What about the many other cases, such as <rdf:RDF>....</rdf:RDF>
> which contains non-ground RDFS, say? ...
Aren't we agreeing?
Jonathan
Received on Sunday, 10 November 2002 20:55:47 UTC