OWL and RDF lists

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

OWL and RDF lists

Jim McCusker
This isn't so much a Protege question as an OWL one, but I'm hoping there are some Elder Beings lurking that might shed some wisdom:

Why does the OWL in RDF interpretation require the use of RDF lists for intersectionOf, unionOf, oneOf, and distinctMembers? There's nothing in the semantics of those relations that require ordering. Is it to provide consistent rendering? If so, that's a terrible reason to make it so difficult to work with OWL in RDF programmatically or using queries.

Personally, I think it should be relaxed and/or removed as a requirement.

Thanks,
Jim
--
Jim McCusker

Director, Data Operations
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
[hidden email]
http://tw.rpi.edu

_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OWL and RDF lists

Lorenz Buehmann

Not sure but I'd say they didn't use RDF containers like Bag or Seq because those are just open, i.e. there is no way to define in RDF that there are no more members in the container. On the other hand, the RDF collection aka rdf:list clearly can define a closed collection via rdf:first, rdf:rest and rdf:nil.

On 10.10.19 22:22, Jim McCusker wrote:
This isn't so much a Protege question as an OWL one, but I'm hoping there are some Elder Beings lurking that might shed some wisdom:

Why does the OWL in RDF interpretation require the use of RDF lists for intersectionOf, unionOf, oneOf, and distinctMembers? There's nothing in the semantics of those relations that require ordering. Is it to provide consistent rendering? If so, that's a terrible reason to make it so difficult to work with OWL in RDF programmatically or using queries.

Personally, I think it should be relaxed and/or removed as a requirement.

Thanks,
Jim
--
Jim McCusker

Director, Data Operations
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
[hidden email]
http://tw.rpi.edu

_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user

_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OWL and RDF lists

Igor Toujilov-2

Hi All,

OWL serialisation in XML/RDF uses RDF lists for historical reasons only, not for rendering.

Yes, this is a horrible design, and should be deprecated in the next OWL standard (perhaps OWL 3?).

 

Cheers,

Igor

 

 
 
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 at 7:25 AM
From: "Lorenz Buehmann" <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [protege-user] OWL and RDF lists

Not sure but I'd say they didn't use RDF containers like Bag or Seq because those are just open, i.e. there is no way to define in RDF that there are no more members in the container. On the other hand, the RDF collection aka rdf:list clearly can define a closed collection via rdf:first, rdf:rest and rdf:nil.

On 10.10.19 22:22, Jim McCusker wrote:
This isn't so much a Protege question as an OWL one, but I'm hoping there are some Elder Beings lurking that might shed some wisdom:
 
Why does the OWL in RDF interpretation require the use of RDF lists for intersectionOf, unionOf, oneOf, and distinctMembers? There's nothing in the semantics of those relations that require ordering. Is it to provide consistent rendering? If so, that's a terrible reason to make it so difficult to work with OWL in RDF programmatically or using queries.
 
Personally, I think it should be relaxed and/or removed as a requirement.
 
Thanks,
Jim
--
Jim McCusker
 
Director, Data Operations
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
[hidden email]
http://tw.rpi.edu
 
 
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
_______________________________________________ protege-user mailing list [hidden email] https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user

_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OWL and RDF lists

Jim McCusker
In reply to this post by Lorenz Buehmann
I don't think any kind of container is needed. It's not like any other predicates need to be closed. 

Jim

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 2:25 AM Lorenz Buehmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

Not sure but I'd say they didn't use RDF containers like Bag or Seq because those are just open, i.e. there is no way to define in RDF that there are no more members in the container. On the other hand, the RDF collection aka rdf:list clearly can define a closed collection via rdf:first, rdf:rest and rdf:nil.

On 10.10.19 22:22, Jim McCusker wrote:
This isn't so much a Protege question as an OWL one, but I'm hoping there are some Elder Beings lurking that might shed some wisdom:

Why does the OWL in RDF interpretation require the use of RDF lists for intersectionOf, unionOf, oneOf, and distinctMembers? There's nothing in the semantics of those relations that require ordering. Is it to provide consistent rendering? If so, that's a terrible reason to make it so difficult to work with OWL in RDF programmatically or using queries.

Personally, I think it should be relaxed and/or removed as a requirement.

Thanks,
Jim
--
Jim McCusker

Director, Data Operations
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
[hidden email]
http://tw.rpi.edu

_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
--
Jim McCusker

Director, Data Operations
Tetherless World Constellation
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
[hidden email]
http://tw.rpi.edu

_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user