Re: possible changes to abstract syntax and direct semantics to support annotations and fix problem with imports from Jos De_Roo on 2003-02-09 (www-webont-wg@w3.org from February 2003)

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 00:46:01 +0100
To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFE902ED0D.1F83AA86-ONC1256CC8.0081A91A-C1256CC8.0082965F@agfa.be>

[...]

> > does the merge of the following OWL Lite graph
> >
> >   :x rdf:type owl:Thing.
> >   :a rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty.
> >   :b rdf:type owl:Thing.
> >   :c rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty.
> >   :d rdf:type owl:Thing.
> >   :x :a :b.                        # annotation triple
> >   :x :c :d.                        # annotation triple
>
> Annotation triples are really part of the abstract syntax, not the triple
> syntax.  In any case, the above graph is not an OWL Lite graph under my
> proposal.

Well, in your "Transformation to Triples" table in
http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/semantics/mapping.html
I find that

  Individual(iID annotation1 ... annotationn
             type(type1) ... type(typen)
             value(pID1 value1) ... value(pIDn valuen))

generates the triples

  iID T(annotation1) . ... iID T(annotationn) .
  iID rdf:type T(type1) . ... iID rdf:type T(typen) .
  iID T(pID1) T(value1) . ... iID T(pIDn) T(valuen) .

and that

  Annotation(URIreference URIreference)

generates the triple

  U <URIreference> <URIreference> .


What did I misunderstand?

[...]


-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

Received on Sunday, 9 February 2003 18:46:52 UTC