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

Re: Requirement for ontology header

From: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 09:09:46 +0200
Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <17327F2D-3F5E-4E04-9B99-D14D8805BAFA@uva.nl>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>

Ah, the difference between SHOULD and MUST again.

-Rinke

On 28 mei 2008, at 08:30, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> 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
>> -----------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>

-----------------------------------------------
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 07:10:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 28 May 2008 07:10:25 GMT