W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: owl:intendedProfile (proposal for ISSUE-111)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:51:19 +0100
Message-ID: <48106627.708@hpl.hp.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-owl-wg@w3.org

Ivan Herman wrote:
> Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> Here's a possible solution for ISSUE-111 [1], with some variations and
>> discussion.  I was only considering the RDF/XML serialization here.  For
>> the XML serialization, a MIME type could a good solution.
>> * Basic Approach:
>> Use an ontology property.  So the users adds a triple like this:
>>   <> owl:intendedProfile owl:DL.
>> This would have processing-model semantics, much like owl:imports.  The
>> processing model is something like this:
>>      1. You fetch the content from some URI U.
>>    2. If its Content-Type is "application/rdf+xml", proceed.
>>       (otherwise, this procedure doesn't apply; it's not OWL
>>       in RDF/XML.)
> What about other RDF serializations (current, like Turtle, or others 
> that may come in future?). Would it lead to problems if we cast in 
> concrete the role of RDF/XML here?

The GRDDL spec managed a reasonable compromise between explicitness 
(RDF/XML) and generality (RDF graph).

e.g. graph
If an information resource([WEBARCH], section 2.2) IR is represented by 
an XML document with an XPath root node R, and R has a GRDDL 
transformation with a transformation property TP, and TP applied to R 
gives an RDF Graph[RDFC04] G, then G is a GRDDL result of IR.

e.g. RDF/XML
If an information resource IR is represented by a conforming RDF/XML 
document[RDFX], then the RDF graph represented by that document is a 
GRDDL result of IR.

I imagine that this issue can be handled similarly.
Also we need to take into account OWL/XML

Received on Thursday, 24 April 2008 10:53:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:04 UTC