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

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

From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:26:18 +0100
To: "'Alan Ruttenberg'" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <008301c8d627$cb3313d0$6c12a8c0@wolf>

Hello,

[snip]

> > 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.
> 

Whether an ontology has been published at u or not is here beyond the point. This paragraph simply says that the location
redirection mechanism should make parsing behave as if the ontology was really retrieved from u (irrespective of the fact whether
the ontology is actually there or not).

[snip]

> > // 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?
> 

What do you really mean "decoupling owl:incompatibleWith from the ontology header"? I have no problem with converting the annotation
property owl:incompatibleWith a fist-class citizen. 

Whereas it might indeed be useful for an ontology O to state what other ontologies it is incompatible with, I strongly believe that
O should not say anything about the compatibility of unrelated ontologies O' and O''. 

> > The ''axiom closure'' of an ontology ''O'' is the smallest set that
> > contains all the axioms from each ontology ''O<nowiki>'</nowiki>''
> > in the import closure of ''O'' with all anonymous individuals
> > ''renamed apart'' &mdash; that is, the anonymous individuals from
> > different ontologies in the import closure of ''O'' are treated as
> > being different; please refer to [[#Anonymous_Individuals|Section
> > 4.6.2]] for more information.
> 
> Why re-specify what renaming apart it. Better to cite the existing
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/ where.

I believe it is beneficial if this specification is self-contained regarding the most important technical issues. Renaming apart is
one such issue, and I believe it is appropriate to repeat it here.

Regards,

	Boris
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2008 18:27:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 24 June 2008 18:27:56 GMT