ISSUE-104: RESOLVED: OWL 1.1 DL does not have a disallowed vocabulary[Editorial]

disallowed vocabulary

RESOLVED: OWL 1.1 DL does not have a disallowed vocabulary[Editorial]

State:

CLOSED

Product:

Raised by:

Michael Schneider

Opened on:

2008-03-21

Description:

The old OWL spec contained a list of "disallowed vocabulary":

<http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/mapping.html#4.2>

In order to be a valid OWL-1.0-DL ontology in RDF graph form, an RDF graph was not allowed to contain certain RDF and OWL vocabulary in wrong positions of an RDF triple. For example, the following RDF graph was not OWL-DL:

G1 := {
rdf:type owl:equivalentClass owl:onProperty .
}

However, I do not see from the 1.1-WDs why this is not an allowed OWL-1.1-DL ontology. There is clearly a mapping from G1 to 1.1-functional syntax:

EquivalentClasses( rdf:type owl:onProperty )

The question is: Is it intended to allow graphs such as G1 to be valid OWL-1.1-DL ontologies?

(Remark: In this specific example, it looks to me that 'rdf:type' and 'owl:onProperty' are both punned into classes.)

Related Actions Items:

• ACTION-159 on Alan Ruttenberg to Work to collect, propose how to address issues in making rdf list vocabulary - due 2008-07-16, closed

Related emails:

1. Re: OWL Full Features in QRG (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2009-05-20)
2. Re: OWL Full Features in QRG (from baojie@gmail.com on 2009-05-20)
3. Re: OWL Full Features in QRG (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2009-05-20)
4. Re: OWL Full Features in QRG (from hendler@cs.rpi.edu on 2009-05-20)
5. Re: OWL Full Features in QRG (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2009-05-20)
6. Re: OWL Full Features in QRG (was Re: Issue-104) (from baojie@gmail.com on 2009-05-20)
7. RE: OWL Full Features in QRG (was Re: Issue-104) (from schneid@fzi.de on 2009-05-06)
8. Re: OWL Full Features in QRG (from baojie@gmail.com on 2009-05-06)
9. Re: OWL Full Features in QRG (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2009-05-06)
10. Re: OWL Full Features in QRG (was Re: Issue-104) (from baojie@gmail.com on 2009-05-06)
11. RE: OWL Full Features in QRG (was Re: Issue-104) (from schneid@fzi.de on 2009-05-06)
12. Re: Issue-104 (from ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2009-05-06)
13. OWL Full Features in QRG (was Re: Issue-104) (from baojie@gmail.com on 2009-05-05)
14. RE: Issue-104 (from schneid@fzi.de on 2009-05-05)
15. Re: Issue-104 (from baojie@gmail.com on 2009-05-05)
16. Re: RDF features in OWL 2 (from baojie@cs.rpi.edu on 2008-11-05)
17. Re: RDF features in OWL 2 (from alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 2008-11-05)
18. RE: RDF features in OWL 2 (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-11-05)
19. Re: RDF features in OWL 2 (from alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 2008-11-04)
20. RE: RDF features in OWL 2 (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-11-04)
21. Re: RDF features in OWL 2 (from alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 2008-11-04)
22. Re: RDF features in OWL 2 (from ekendall@sandsoft.com on 2008-11-03)
23. RE: RDF features in OWL 2 (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-11-03)
24. Re: changes to Syntax document to implement the resolution of ISSUE-104 (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-08-18)
25. changes to Syntax document to implement the resolution of ISSUE-104 (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-08-13)
26. Re: Issue-104 (from alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 2008-08-12)
27. RE: Issue-104 (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-08-12)
28. Re: Issue-104 (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-08-12)
29. Issue-104 (from alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 2008-08-12)
30. ISSUE-104 Proposal to resolve (from ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-08-10)
31. Re: A proposal for ISSUE-104 (built-in vocabulary) (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-06-12)
32. RE: A proposal for ISSUE-104 (built-in vocabulary) (from boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-06-12)
33. RE: A proposal for ISSUE-104 (built-in vocabulary) (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-06-12)
34. RE: A proposal for ISSUE-104 (built-in vocabulary) (from boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-06-11)
35. RE: A proposal for ISSUE-104 (built-in vocabulary) (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-06-11)
36. Re: A proposal for ISSUE-104 (built-in vocabulary) (from alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 2008-06-11)
37. Re: A proposal for ISSUE-104 (built-in vocabulary) (from ivan@w3.org on 2008-06-11)
38. Re: A proposal for ISSUE-104 (built-in vocabulary) (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-06-11)
39. Re: A proposal for ISSUE-104 (built-in vocabulary) (from ivan@w3.org on 2008-06-11)
40. Re: A proposal for ISSUE-104 (built-in vocabulary) (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-06-11)
41. Re: A proposal for ISSUE-104 (built-in vocabulary) (from ivan@w3.org on 2008-06-11)
42. Re: A proposal for ISSUE-104 (built-in vocabulary) (from ivan@w3.org on 2008-06-11)
43. RE: A proposal for ISSUE-104 (built-in vocabulary) (from conrad.bock@nist.gov on 2008-06-11)
44. A proposal for ISSUE-104 (built-in vocabulary) (from boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-06-11)
45. RE: ISSUE-104: The non-disallowed vocabulary in OWL 1 DL (from boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-06-09)
46. RE: ISSUE-104: The non-disallowed vocabulary in OWL 1 DL (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-06-09)
47. Re: ISSUE-104: The non-disallowed vocabulary in OWL 1 DL (from ivan@w3.org on 2008-06-09)
48. RE: ISSUE-104: The non-disallowed vocabulary in OWL 1 DL (from boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-06-09)
49. Re: ISSUE-104: The non-disallowed vocabulary in OWL 1 DL (from ivan@w3.org on 2008-06-09)
50. RE: ISSUE-104: The non-disallowed vocabulary in OWL 1 DL (from boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-06-08)
51. ISSUE-104: The non-disallowed vocabulary in OWL 1 DL (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-06-07)
52. RE: ISSUE-104: Several issues with the current treatment of disallowed vocabulary (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-06-04)
53. RE: ISSUE-104: Several issues with the current treatment of disallowed vocabulary (from boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-06-04)
54. ISSUE-104: Several issues with the current treatment of disallowed vocabulary (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-06-03)
55. RDF Reification for annotations and negative property assertions (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-05-28)
56. RE: rdf:list vocabulary (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-05-28)
57. RE: rdf:list vocabulary (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-05-28)
58. ISSUE-104 (disallowed vocabulary): OWL 1.1 DL does not have a disallowed vocabulary (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2008-03-21)

Related notes:

Display change log