ISSUE-56

repairsomerdf

CLOSED: Note on standard "repairs" for moving select RDF documents to OWL

State:
CLOSED
Product:
Raised by:
Alan Ruttenberg
Opened on:
2007-11-18
Description:
Clarification: What is proposed is a "note" which collects advise about reasonable automated ways to move rdf/rdfs to OWL, along with the benefits of/tradeoffs made with these choices, to serve as a baseline guide to implementors who wish to provide such a service. Removed previous wording about it being a "profile".

With this tool providers could perform these repairs when users explicitly ask for RDF/RDFS to be reasoned with under the closest OWL-DL semantics possible.

I suggest this because even though such repair services are offered by some tools, it isn't always clear what they are doing. Also, having this in the specification might allow more developers who want or need to use RDFS for other reasons (can't see why they would, personally :) to do so, while still making provision for users who wished to use the stronger inference capabilities available in DL reasoners. Viewed in this context, translating bnodes into skolems would be one more "repair".

In other words, it provides a way for there to be a simpler migration path for users of RDF/RDFS who are intrigued by OWL, but not ready to commit to changing their vocabulary.

Previous: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Nov/0261.html
Related Actions Items:
No related actions
Related emails:
  1. Proposed CLOSE ISSUE 56 with no action ( was Re: Agenda TC 22/04/2009) (from bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk on 2009-04-21)
  2. question on F2F agenda related to ISSUE-56 (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-10-14)
  3. Re: proposal to close ISSUE-56 - Specify standard 'repairs' for moving select RDF documents to OWL? (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-10-09)
  4. Re: proposal to close ISSUE-56 - Specify standard 'repairs' for moving select RDF documents to OWL? (from ivan@w3.org on 2008-10-09)
  5. RE: proposal to close ISSUE-56 - Specify standard 'repairs' for moving select RDF documents to OWL? (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-10-09)
  6. proposal to close ISSUE-56 - Specify standard 'repairs' for moving select RDF documents to OWL? (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-10-09)
  7. Re: An approach to xsd:dateTime (from ewallace@cme.nist.gov on 2008-07-29)
  8. Re: ISSUE-55 (owl:class) (and ISSUE-56 repairsomerdf) (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2007-12-03)
  9. Re: ISSUE-55 (owl:class) (and ISSUE-56 repairsomerdf) (from alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 2007-12-02)
  10. Re: ISSUE-55 (owl:class) (from dlm@ksl.stanford.edu on 2007-12-02)
  11. Re: ISSUE-55 (owl:class) (from ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2007-12-02)
  12. Re: ISSUE-56 (repairsomerdf): Specify standard 'repairs' for moving select RDF documents to OWL? (from ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2007-11-28)
  13. ISSUE-56 (repairsomerdf): Specify standard 'repairs' for moving select RDF documents to OWL? (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2007-11-18)

Related notes:

2007-11-18 07:01:18: Related: ISSUE-55 [Alan Ruttenberg]

2007-12-22 10:31:45: Accepted 2007.12.19. See minutes: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2007.12.19/Minutes [Ian Horrocks]

2009-04-22 18:10:31: Closed with no action in teleconference of 22 April 2009. [Peter Patel-Schneider]

2009-04-27 09:19:21: Closed with no action.
See: http://www.w3.org/2008/06/wiki_scribe/?source=http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Chatlog_2009-04-22#resolution_2
[Ian Horrocks]

Changelog:

2007-11-18 07:00:31: Created issue 'Specify standard "repairs" for moving select RDF documents to OWL?' nickname repairsomerdf owned by Alan Ruttenberg on product , description 'From: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Nov/0261.html ... makes me wonder whether it might make sense to formalize a set of standard repairs, defining exactly what the suggested repairs are and consequences thereof. Maybe we could call this a "profile" or somesuch, giving tool providers sanction to perform these repairs when users explicitly ask for RDF/RDFS to be reasoned with under the closest OWL-DL semantics possible. I suggest this because even though such repair services are offered by some tools, it isn't always clear what they are doing. Also, having this in the specification might allow more developers who want or need to use RDFS for other reasons (can't see why they would, personally :) to do so, while still making provision for users who wished to use the stronger inference capabilities available in DL reasoners. Viewed in this context, translating bnodes into skolems would be one more "repair". In other words, it provides a way for there to be a simpler migration path for users of RDF/RDFS who are intrigued by OWL, but not ready to commit to changing their vocabulary. ' non-public [Alan Ruttenberg]

2007-11-18 07:01:18: Issue dissociated from any product [Alan Ruttenberg]

2007-11-20 13:49:37: title changed to 'REPORTED: Specify standard "repairs" for moving select RDF documents to OWL?' [Jeremy Carroll]

2007-11-20 13:49:37: Issue dissociated from any product [Jeremy Carroll]

2007-12-22 10:31:45: title changed to 'ACCEPTED: Specify standard "repairs" for moving select RDF documents to OWL?' [Ian Horrocks]

2007-12-22 10:31:45: Issue dissociated from any product [Ian Horrocks]

2008-10-14 15:41:29: title changed to 'ACCEPTED: Note on standard "repairs" for moving select RDF documents to OWL' [Alan Ruttenberg]

2008-10-14 15:41:29: Description changed to 'Clarification: What is proposed is a "note" which collects advise about reasonable automated ways to move rdf/rdfs to OWL, along with the benefits of/tradeoffs made with these choices, to serve as a baseline guide to implementors who wish to provide such a service. Removed previous wording about it being a "profile". With this tool providers could perform these repairs when users explicitly ask for RDF/RDFS to be reasoned with under the closest OWL-DL semantics possible. I suggest this because even though such repair services are offered by some tools, it isn't always clear what they are doing. Also, having this in the specification might allow more developers who want or need to use RDFS for other reasons (can't see why they would, personally :) to do so, while still making provision for users who wished to use the stronger inference capabilities available in DL reasoners. Viewed in this context, translating bnodes into skolems would be one more "repair". In other words, it provides a way for there to be a simpler migration path for users of RDF/RDFS who are intrigued by OWL, but not ready to commit to changing their vocabulary. Previous: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Nov/0261.html ' [Alan Ruttenberg]

2008-10-14 15:41:29: Issue dissociated from any product [Alan Ruttenberg]

2009-04-22 18:10:31: Issue dissociated from any product [Peter Patel-Schneider]

2009-04-27 09:19:21: title changed to 'CLOSED: Note on standard "repairs" for moving select RDF documents to OWL' [Ian Horrocks]

2009-04-27 09:19:21: Issue dissociated from any product [Ian Horrocks]

2009-04-27 09:19:21: Status changed to 'closed' [Ian Horrocks]

Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Chairs, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, Staff Contacts
Tracker, originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: index.php,v 1.231 2009/11/16 15:00:54 dom Exp $