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

Re: ISSUE-24, ISSUE-21: Versioning language

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:30:36 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20080618.153036.153335890.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: alanruttenberg@gmail.com
Cc: boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk, ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ISSUE-24, ISSUE-21: Versioning language
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:48:24 -0400

> 
> On Jun 18, 2008, at 12:39 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> >> There would still only be one ontologyURI rdf:type owl:Ontology. I'm
> >> not suggesting that each subject and object of an incompatibleWith has
> >> an associated type triple. Same situation as with versionURI not
> >> having one in the current mapping.
> >
> > But then what syntactic category are the subject and object of triples
> > with property owl:incompatibleWith?
> 
> What is the syntactic category of a versionURI?

In the OWL 2 syntax a version URI only shows up in a special place in
the syntax, and is thus has the syntactic category of the version URI of
the ontology.  

> >> I'm worried about the case where you have an import that names vu, a
> >>>> specific version. As I read it, ou, which might be a different
> >>>> version of the same ontology, might be allowed to be loaded, which
> >>>> would be incorrect.
> >
> > But the document is specifying how importing works, isn't it?  Importing
> > works by accessing the ontology document at a URI, nothing about
> > versions, etc.  Why then this must stuff related to versions?
> 
> I don't know why it must, but it does. 

> Have you read it recently? 

Yes, otherwise I wouldn't be commenting on it.

> I
> found I had to navigate to a number of places to collect the
> information I needed to understand what the policy is. In my
> previous mail I suggested it say something direct, like: 
> 
> 1) Import(u) means access the ontology at u.
> 2) If the accessed ontology has an ou, optional vu that one of them should be u.

Sure, but what does this have to do with current versions, particularly
with a "must" wording?

> >> The wording was inconsistent with the other wierd cases. For example
> >> the case where two different ontologies were loaded, or where
> >> incompatible ontologies were detected, it was considered syntactically
> >> invalid. Why should this wierdness be handled differently?
> >
> > Because it is a different kind of wierdness.  The use of "syntactically
> > invalid" was previously related to ... syntactic validity.  Importing
> > incompatible ontologies is, in my view, something different.
> 
> I am saying, regardless of what mechanism we choose to apply to the
> wierdness, that importing two versions in the same ontology series
> and importing incompatible ontologies should be considered the same
> kind of wierdness. These are the only two wierdnesses I'm
> considering relevant to this discussion. 

I agree that importing incompatible ontologies or importing multiple
versions of an ontology should be handled the same way.  I was wondering
why this had to be "syntactic invalidity", which I think needlessly
conflates ontology incompatibility with syntactic validity.

> -Alan

peter
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2008 19:31:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 18 June 2008 19:31:41 GMT