- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:25:32 +0100
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
I have been revising my version of the rules just enough to generate the triple tables ... I had a few points/questions - two of which Guus has already made - 3.a EquivalentClass - 3.b Deprecation of datatypes? (I missed the datarange mapping rule qu) Further ... - the mapping rules don't yet seem to allow DAGs of descriptions; I was hoping for changes in the introductory text - the rules seem to allow an annotation with an object which is an arbitrary uriref, which may not have a type triple - is that an oversight or deliberate? - the following triple is incorrectly permitted: rdfs:Literal rdf:type rdfs:Datatype . - I had asked whether we could liberalise the rules concerning InverseFunctionalProperty, TranstiveProperty, SymmetricProperty to avoid requiring two type triples for these in OWL Lite and OWL DL. My suggestion was: + make the rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty triple optional + add global constraint that every individual valued property had one of these type triples. + ensure that each of these classes is a subclass of owl:ObjectProperty in the RDFS compatible semantics What is the status of this suggestion? - Further I had suggested that the optional triples permitting _:blank rdf:type rdfs:Class . on description and restriction nodes were not useful and should be deleted. Rationale: the optional RDFS triples are there to enhance interoperability with RDFS, yet RDFS idiom does not use such triples with blank subjects. Moreover the blank nodes cannot be shared between files, so occur only in OWL files. Again, what is the status of this suggestion? BTW the newish text on the side condition looks good - thanks for sorting this. Jeremy .
Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2003 09:25:01 UTC