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


From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 17:29:43 +0000
Message-ID: <47A74B87.8020200@hpl.hp.com>
To: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

Alan asked me to write up my proposal on caching.


I have placed it with Peter's since it is essentially the same,
in fact, I don't think I add very much to


with the new text I offer.

The text is:

When using ontologies from the Web, tools MAY, as always, need a local 
cache. In a typical cache local files are used which are copies of 
remote ontologies retrieved with a Web GET operation. In this case, if 
the tool has access to the Web and the cache copy is out-of-date with 
respect to the Web copy, it SHOULD be replaced. Editing tools, being 
used as part of a publication process MAY have local files which are 
being prepared for a Web PUT operation. In this case, if the tool has 
access to the Web then Web copies of such resources SHOULD be ignored. 
To faciliate interoperation between tools using the same cache copies 
(both GET-cache and PUT-cache), the RDF vocabulary in appendix-TBD MAY 
be used (e.g. Jena location mapper).

I note that Boris did not like the word 'cache' - I have tried to 
clarify with 'GET cache' and 'PUT cache' ... maybe Boris would like to 
suggest some other wording.

I also carefully avoid specifying the file where the mappings is held. 
This means that interoperability between tools requires some minimal config.

This suggestion is likely to *not* work when the local copy of an 
ontology is held in a database and not a file.


PS Approximate location mapper functionality

ThisURI to ThatURI

ThisURIPrefix to ThatURIPrefix

but no regex replacements.
Received on Monday, 4 February 2008 17:30:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:02 UTC