Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago
One possibility is metamodeling. E.g.
Declaration(ObjectProperty(<http://x.org#p>))
FunctionalObjectProperty(<http://x.org#p>)
Declaration(AnnotationProperty(<http://x.org#p>))
is valid OWL-DL.
Original comment by cmung...@gmail.com
on 3 Nov 2010 at 11:43
Each alone is valid. But you can't pun object properties and annotation
properties. "No IRI I is declared in Ax as being of more than one type of
property; that is, no I is declared in Ax to be both object and data, object
and annotation, or data and annotation property."
Not sure what you mean by metamodeling.
Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com
on 4 Nov 2010 at 4:57
metamodeling as in punning.
The above ontology is accepted by the owlapi and p4
Anyway, I've forgotten the context of the original issue. Is it just that the
typing constraints should be inherited by obo-format? I think this is implicit,
just as in
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-mapping-to-rdf/
Original comment by cmung...@gmail.com
on 16 Jun 2011 at 10:27
Original comment by cmung...@gmail.com
on 13 Jul 2011 at 8:12
They are not implicit. See
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-mapping-to-rdf/#Analyzing_Declarations
The issue is that OBO allows syntactic forms that do not map to OWL-DL and
there needs to be some story of what happens in such cases. Or, the syntax
needs to be constrained so this is not possible. I favor the latter approach as
it is easier.
Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com
on 13 Jul 2011 at 10:40
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
alanruttenberg@gmail.com
on 3 Nov 2010 at 3:34