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

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

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:08:14 -0400
Message-Id: <02E5B714-509C-4696-A27F-265F51A5C76B@gmail.com>
Cc: boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk, ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>


On Jun 18, 2008, at 3:30 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>> 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.

As I propose that these don't have logical semantics, perhaps the  
syntactic category "things that are the subject or object of  
owl:incompatibleWith". Allow them to be any URI, and only pay  
attention to them if it happens that both of them are ou or vu of an  
ontology in the imports closure. If that doesn't work, could you  
explain how it would cause probems?

>
>> Ifound 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?

In my reading I couldn't figure where it said that it wasn't cool for  
a tool to access the current version of an ontology instead of the  
specified version. I could have tried to rewrite the whole section to  
be simpler and more direct. Instead I chose to patch the place I  
though there was hole with some language that said you can't do that.

> 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.

OK, then we are in agreement about what I considered the root  
problem. Let's discuss alternatives to invoking syntactic validity.  
At the low end we have the old "should not be in the imports closure"  
wording. I we all can't agree to something that improves on that it's  
fine with me to leave it like that.

>
>> -Alan
>
> peter
>
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2008 23:08:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 18 June 2008 23:08:58 GMT