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

Re: ISSUE-15: Ontologies should not be required to include a URI

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:39:05 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20080123.143905.235032559.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Cc: "Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>

I have implemented these changes except for the required change to
Figure 1 (which Boris has to change, I think).   My changes are
documented in a note to ISSUE-15.

peter

PS:  It would be nice to get the Figure sources in the Wiki.


From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Subject: ISSUE-15: Ontologies should not be required to include a URI
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:39:49 -0500 (EST)

> 
> I believe that there has been general consensus that ontologies need not
> include a name.  However, I cannot find a good pointer to any
> documentation on the discussion.
> 
> So:
> 1/ Does anyone have any good pointers to any discussion on this issue?
> 2/ Absent that, does anyone have any problems allowing "anonymous"
>    ontologies, i.e., ontologies without a name.
> 
> I propose that we allows OWL 1.1 ontologies to be anonymous, i.e.,
> without a name, and that we change Syntax to allow this in the syntax,
> Semantics to fix up the semantics (if necessary), and RDF mapping to fix
> up the mappings.
> 
> This issue is related to the issue of imports, but I believe that any
> imports solution can deal with anonymous ontologies (if only to the
> extent that anonymous ontologies cannot be imported).
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> 
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 20:08:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 23 January 2008 20:08:53 GMT