ISSUE-66
mapping inconsistencies
RESOLVED: inconsistencies between mapping rules
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- Raised by:
- Jeremy Carroll
- Opened on:
- 2007-11-20
- Description:
The OWL 1.0 mapping rules only mapped from the abstract syntax to the triples. The member submission defines two sets of mapping rules (going both ways). Presumably there is some relationship required between the two sets of mapping rules. This relationship is neither stated nor proved.
- Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- RE: ISSUE-66 (mapping inconsistencies): REPORTED: inconsistencies between mapping rules (from boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2007-11-28)
- Re: ISSUE-66 (mapping inconsistencies): REPORTED: inconsistencies between mapping rules (from jjc@hpl.hp.com on 2007-11-21)
- RE: ISSUE-66 (mapping inconsistencies): REPORTED: inconsistencies between mapping rules (from boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2007-11-21)
- Re: ISSUE-66 (mapping inconsistencies): REPORTED: inconsistencies between mapping rules (from jjc@hpl.hp.com on 2007-11-21)
- RE: ISSUE-66 (mapping inconsistencies): REPORTED: inconsistencies between mapping rules (from boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2007-11-20)
- ISSUE-66 (mapping inconsistencies): REPORTED: inconsistencies between mapping rules (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2007-11-20)
Related notes:
2008-04-14 08:40:37: Resolved at F2F2 [1] by adding text to intro of mapping document (see [2]).
[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F2_Minutes#Issue_66_.26_Issue_94
[2] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Mapping_to_RDF_Graphs&diff=prev&oldid=5315 [Ian Horrocks]
Display change log
