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

RE: imports

From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 18:17:11 -0000
To: "'Web Ontology Language \(\(OWL\)\) Working Group WG'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001901c868ec$7e0a8b90$4012a8c0@wolf>

Hello,

I have added another proposal for dealing with imports. I have produced a concrete wording that we might use; please take a look at

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Imports#Boris.27s_Proposal_for_handling_imports

The proposal is in its essence identical to Peter's, with a more explicit statement of what an implementation can do. It is also
quite similar to Jeremy's proposal; the main difference is that I stated everything in more general terms than just caching: I
believe that this is a more general than caching and it actually the issue of locating one's ontologies.

Let me know if you have any comments.

Regards,

	Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Carroll
> Sent: 04 February 2008 17:30
> To: Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG
> Subject: imports
> 
> 
> 
> Alan asked me to write up my proposal on caching.
> 
> see
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Imports#Proposal-jjc-variant
> 
> 
> I have placed it with Peter's since it is essentially the same,
> in fact, I don't think I add very much to
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Imports#Off-web_issues
> 
> 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 the tool has access to the Web and the cache copy is out-of-date with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.
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> PS Approximate location mapper functionality
> 
> ThisURI to ThatURI
> 
> ThisURIPrefix to ThatURIPrefix
> 
> but no regex replacements.
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2008 18:18:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 6 February 2008 18:18:28 GMT