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

Re: Requirement for ontology header

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 02:30:24 -0400
Message-Id: <9ECFC157-1F25-416D-BE08-6F514B54DE60@gmail.com>
Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>

On May 28, 2008, at 2:08 AM, Rinke Hoekstra wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I like the idea of being able to do this (very sensible on the  
> semantic web), but doesn't this interact with the imports section  
> as well? Unless of course by 'import' you meant 'load'...
>
> An RDF/XML file containing only PropertyAssertions does not contain  
> an OntologyURI or VersionURI (as there is no owl:Ontology element),

I proposed repairing the issue of there being no ontology element.  
But yes, there is no OntologyURI or VersionURI.

> so it cannot be imported from another ontology.

There may very well be repairs needed to the imports and versioning  
section. However, imports is by location, first, so locating the  
document to import isn't a problem. I had a look and saw this:

"When opening an ontology form a location u, OWL 2 tools should check  
whether u matches the ontology or the version URI according to the  
mentioned three constraints."

So this is a "should", not a "must".

There is also: "The ontology and the version URI, if present,  
determine the physical location of an ontology O "

Here we have "if present".

Is there somewhere else where it is stated more strongly?

-Alan

>
> -Rinke
>
> PS Trackbot, this is related to ISSUE-21
>
> On 28 mei 2008, at 05:49, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>
>>
>> We had, at some point discussed the situation where one might  
>> import a document not explicitly purposed for OWL, but which could  
>> still be valid OWL in combinaton with other axioms - for instance  
>> a RDF/XML document consisting solely of PropertyAssertions.
>>
>> However, the RDF Mapping document currently precludes this:
>>
>>> First, patterns from Table 3 are matched to G in order to extract  
>>> the ontology header  the ontology URI and the set of URIs of the  
>>> imported ontologies. If no such pattern can be matched in G, or  
>>> if the pattern can be matched to G in more than one way, the  
>>> graph G is rejected as invalid.
>>>
>>
>> I suggest we relax this to:
>>
>>
>>> First, patterns from Table 3 are matched to G in order to extract  
>>> the ontology header  the ontology URI and the set of URIs of the  
>>> imported ontologies. If the pattern can be matched to G in more  
>>> than one way, the graph G is rejected as invalid.
>>
>> and have the case where there is no match yield the ontology  
>> header  Ontology().
>>
>> I don't know if the matching rules should be adjusted to consider  
>> malformed headers as invalid.
>>
>>
>> -Alan
>>
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> Drs. Rinke Hoekstra
>
> Email: hoekstra@uva.nl    Skype:  rinkehoekstra
> Phone: +31-20-5253499     Fax:   +31-20-5253495
> Web:   http://www.leibnizcenter.org/users/rinke
>
> Leibniz Center for Law,          Faculty of Law
> University of Amsterdam,            PO Box 1030
> 1000 BA  Amsterdam,             The Netherlands
> -----------------------------------------------
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2008 06:31:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 28 May 2008 06:31:19 GMT