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: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:36:07 -0400
Message-Id: <1AA8E9C7-7136-4934-8A78-39453271B0DB@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: "Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>


On Jun 24, 2008, at 2:26 PM, Boris Motik wrote:

> Hello,
>
> [snip]
>>
>> 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).

I probably agree with Peter about it being out of scope, but the case  
I was thinking about was if it never has been there. Then there is  
not way behave as if it really was retrieve from there because it has  
never been there.

> [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.

I meant being able to state, in a place other than the ontology  
header, something like

IncompatibleOntologies(u1,u2)

Is that what you mean by making it a first 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''.

I don't agree, and I don't see why you would think so.

>>> 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.
Then also cite, I think, as it makes it easier for someone who is  
coming from the W3C world to know that we  aren't inventing something  
new.

Best,
Alan
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2008 18:36:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 24 June 2008 18:36:48 GMT