RE: Suggestions for response to: Some comments on OWL Reference from Jeremy Carroll on 2003-04-10 (www-webont-wg@w3.org from April 2003)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 19:14:21 +0200
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Guus Schreiber" <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>, "WebOnt WG" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDEEHMCBAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

> >  >     8.3 OWL Lite
> >  >     ...
> >  >     the subject of owl:equivalentClass triples be named classes and
> > the object of owl:equivalentClass triples be named classes,
> > restrictions, or subjects of owl:intersectionOf triples (?);
> >  >     ...
> >  > ]
> >  >

That last phrase was true a while ago, before the resolution of the OWL DL
Syntax issue, when we prohibited restrictions with multiple components from
OWL Lite.

It seems to suggest something like

<owl:Class rdf:about="#A">
  <owl:equivalentClass>
    <owl:Class>
      <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Literal">
  ...
      </owl:intersectionOf>
    </owl:Class>
  </owl:equivalentClass>
</owl:Class>

I do not believe there are any mapping rules applicable to OWL Lite that can
produce such constructs.

Restricitions follow by mapping

Class(classID complete restriction( *** ) )

which gives

T(classID) owl:equivalentClass T(restriction( *** )) .

Jeremy

Received on Thursday, 10 April 2003 13:14:38 UTC