Re: possible changes to abstract syntax and direct semantics to support annotations and fix problem with imports

From: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Subject: Re: possible changes to abstract syntax and direct semantics to support annotations and fix problem with imports
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 00:46:01 +0100

> 
> [...]
> 
> > > 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?
> 
> [...]


The transformation does *not* produce

   :a rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty.
or
   :c rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty.

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

peter

Received on Monday, 10 February 2003 07:22:07 UTC