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: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:13:25 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20080624.141325.152750120.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: alanruttenberg@gmail.com
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ISSUE-24, ISSUE-21: Versioning language
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:02:52 -0400

> Thanks for this, Peter, I like almost all of it. Some questions in
> line - anything I didn't comment on I agree with (which is most
> everything). 
> 
> -Alan
> 
> On Jun 20, 2008, at 4:10 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

[...]

> > The ontology and the version URI, if present, determine the
> > -- physicallocation of an ontology ''O'' according to the following rules:
> >
> > * If ''O'' does not contain an ontology URI (and, consequently, without a version URI as well), then ''O'' may be
> > -- physically
> > located anywhere.
> > * If ''O'' contains an ontology URI ''ou'' but no version URI, then ''O'' <em title="SHOULD in RFC 2119 context" class="RFC2119">SHOULD</em> be
> > -- physically
> > located at the location ''ou''.
> > * If ''O'' contains an ontology URI ''ou'' and a version URI ''vu'', then ''O'' <em title="SHOULD in RFC 2119 context" class="RFC2119">SHOULD</em> be
> > -- physicallylocated at the location ''vu'' and
> > // may, // should, ## to have at least one version be at the ontology URI
> > in addition, be
> > -- physically
> > located at the location ''ou'',
> > ++ unless there is another ontology with ontology URI ''ou'' located at ''ou''. ## ditto
> 
> I think it would be clearer to not mix the issue of needing some
> version of the ontology located at ou with the issue of vu located
> ontologies. Rather something along the lines of there should be a
> current version of the ontology, coupled with the below comment
> regarding "current" 
> 
> > Thus, the
> > // most recent // current ## the current version may not be the most recent
> > version of an ontology series with some URI ''ou'' <em title="SHOULD in RFC 2119 context" class="RFC2119">SHOULD</em> be accessed from ''ou''.
> > -- using a suitable (Internet) protocol. ## this is implicit in the URI

> I think this is a definition of "current". So I would move it higher,
> and then below it say there should exists a current version of any
> ontology. 

Suggest a wording.

> > locations (as dictated by the ontology URI and the version URI). In such cases, OWL 2
> > ++ tools
> > may implement
 
> OWL 2 isn't the sort of thing that "implements". OWL 2 implementations
> may implement... 

That's why I added the "tools".

> > a ''location redirection'' mechanism: when the user requests to open
> > an ontology at location ''u'', the tool can translate ''u'' to a
> > different location ''u<nowiki>'</nowiki>'' and access the ontology
> > from there. The result of parsing the ontology located at
> > ''u<nowiki>'</nowiki>'' must be the same as if the ontology were
> > retrieved from ''u''. Furthermore, once the ontology is parsed, it
> > <em title="SHOULD in RFC 2119 context" class="RFC2119">SHOULD</em>
> > satisfy the three conditions from the beginning of this section in
> > the same way as if it were retrieved from ''u''. 
 
> What about an ontology that has not yet been published at u, so
> retrieving it is not possible, such as when one is editing a new
> ontology. Or even if it is published at u, but you edit the local
> version and aren't ready to publish it as the changes are under
> review. 

Out of scope.

[...]

> > An ontology ''O'' ''directly imports'' an ontology ''O<nowiki>'</nowiki>'' if ''O'' contains an import construct
> > // whose value is the ontology URI of ''O<nowiki>'</nowiki>''.  // with URI ''u'' and ''O<nowiki>'</nowiki>''is the ontology located at ''u''. ## Change this to use location-based wording.
> > The relation ''imports'' is defined as a transitive closure of the relation ''directly imports''. Finally, the ''import closure'' of ''O'' consists of ''O'' and each ontology that ''O'' imports.
> >
> > // An ontology ''O'' <em title="SHOULD in RFC 2119 context" class="RFC2119">SHOULD</em> be considered syntactically invalid if the import closure of ''O'' contains // The imports closure of an ontology <em title="SHOULD NOT in RFC 2119 context" class="RFC2119">SHOULD NOT</em> contain ## Move to a location-based wording
> > ontologies ''O<sub>1</sub>'' and ''O<sub>2</sub>'' such that
> >
> > * ''O<sub>1</sub>'' and ''O<sub>2</sub>'' are different ontology versions from the same ontology series, or
> > * ''O<sub>1</sub>'' contains an ontology annotation ''owl:incompatibleWith'' with the value equal to either the ontology or the version URI of ''O<sub>2</sub>''.
 
> I still want owl:incompatibleWith to be decoupled from the ontology
> header. Shall I raise this as a separate issue? 

It's up to you, I guess.

[Comments on unchanged stuff removed.]

> -Alan

peter
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2008 18:14:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 24 June 2008 18:14:46 GMT