Hi Leonard,
If you are trying to get an understanding of "what officially counts as what", I believe it would probably make sense to base this understanding on the current spec, which is OWL 2, not on the old OWL 1.0 spec. Things have certainly changed between OWL 1.0 and OWL 2.0. < Correct me if I am wrong, but Irene's point seemed to be that RDFS, in the context of TBC, provides framework information and is not included in a model that is exported from TBC. > Yes. (Although, as a side note, I am not sure that the word "export" is quite the right one. You simply save the model and you can use any common RDF serialization as a format. While TBC supports different serializations, the only serialization that is mandated by the standard is RDF/XML.) This is not unique to TBC. Any ontology editor I've ever used would do the same in terms of not including axioms from RDF or RDFS or OWL with the ontologies you create using the editor. The same general rule applies if you were to create an ontology in a notepad - not that I would recommend this J. For example, if you take a look at any publically available ontology such as SKOS or FOAF you will not see in them any triples that are part of RDF or RDFS or OWL. The same is true if you look at the models representing each standard. Since the modeling frameworks are layered, OWL extends RDFS, but if you look at the model defining OWL you will not see any RDFS definitions in it. Statements from other ontologies are not coped, instead, imports are used. Regards, Irene From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Leonard Jacuzzo Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 9:34 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [topbraid-users] Re: Syntax Checker? Thanks to all for this good info. I am not using a syntax checker. I am merely attempting to gain an understanding of what officially counts as what. I did not take Irene to be giving information that is pertinenant to a syntax checker. Correct me if I am wrong, but Irene's point seemed to be that RDFS, in the context of TBC, provides framework information and is not included in a model that is exported from TBC. Thuse, I do not need to delete it in order to have exported ontologies, which do not use these expressions, count as OWL 1-DL. Is this correct? Best, Leonard On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Scott Henninger <[email protected]> wrote: Just to be clear, Irene is correct about this. Breaking the RDFS standard by removing rrdfs:subPropertyOf relationships should have no effect on results from your DL syntax checker. The problems you are experiencing are either due to other relationships in your model or the DL checker you are using is in error. Composer is faithfully following the standard and does nothing extra in this case. -- Scott On Feb 1, 5:44 pm, "Irene Polikoff" <[email protected]> wrote: > Furthermore, as far as I can tell, deleting this axiom would have no impact > whatsoever on the ontologies Leonard develops. This includes not only > whether they would pass OWL DL compliance check, but also, even more > fundamentally, their content. > > This is because ontologies one develops do not contain the statement Leonard > considering deleting. Just like they do not contain statements defining what > owl:Class is or what owl:ObjectProperty is. These triples come from the > standard namespaces implementing the W3C specifications and are not part of > the user defined domain ontologies. > > Regards, > > Irene -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group "TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include TopBraid Composer, TopBraid Live, TopBraid Ensemble, SPARQLMotion and SPIN. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] <mailto:topbraid-users%[email protected]> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-users?hl=en -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group "TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include TopBraid Composer, TopBraid Live, TopBraid Ensemble, SPARQLMotion and SPIN. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-users?hl=en -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group "TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include TopBraid Composer, TopBraid Live, TopBraid Ensemble, SPARQLMotion and SPIN. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-users?hl=en
