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

Re: ISSUE-137 (including XML includes)

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 22:24:11 +0100
Message-Id: <F05B21D8-EC18-4D97-AF72-31C66529D959@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>

On Sep 12, 2008, at 9:37 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Bijan Parsia  
> <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On Sep 12, 2008, at 8:57 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>>> An inclusion directive could be
>>> expressed as an RDF triple, and the OWL documentation could specify
>>> how it should be interpreted (i.e. by including the triples  
>>> resulting
>>> from parsing the included document).
>> Which is a change to the other serializations. They now have a  
>> triple that
>> they have to interpret specially. Not just at the reasoner level,  
>> but at the
>> parsing level.
> No they don't. The inclusion directive would be interpreted by the OWL
> processor, not by the RDF parser.

Fair enough, although it introduces yet more syntax triples. We  
already gave up some features for the sake of minimizing the  
vocabulary. I would much prefer to have object and data properties  
back if we intend to reopen that debate.

Introducing things at the RDF level has lots of ramifications  
including on OWL Full.

>> Indeed, why should we impose a triple on them?
> It's their job to carry triples.

? The point is that serializations may prefer not to treat this as a  
triple level matter.

>> Turtle might prefer to add an @directive instead. N3 might prefer  
>> to use their own builtin.
> I don't see how this affects what we need to do.

We don't *need* to do what you would like us to do, so in that sense,  
we agree that my point doesn't affect what we *need* to do.

Other RDF serializations use non-triple constructs for various syntax  
level features. Your approach precludes that.

But ok, I withdraw my incoherence charge. There is a design that, in  
some sense, will work across all RDF serializations if we are willing  
to impose more stuff at the RDF level. However, it's a design with  
several inherent issues even before we get to the rest of the points  
I raised.

Received on Friday, 12 September 2008 21:24:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:06 UTC