W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > February 2009

Re: ACTION-264: Discuss imports with Tim Redmond.

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:57:20 +0000
Message-Id: <DC930FBD-812C-4952-AA83-25C780DF7D2A@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Timothy Redmond <tredmond@stanford.edu>
On 18 Feb 2009, at 19:30, Timothy Redmond wrote:

> I wanted to be sure that I understood where things stand with this
> issue.  It seems to me that XML Catalogs can be used to satisfy the  
> use
> cases that I have. (I have another use case where XML Catalogs would
> also seem to work).  But this only works if a critical mass of the  
> tools
> adopt or at least support this mechanism.

Yes. But XML Catalogs are a standard and widely (AFAICT) technique in  
the wider world. We should avoid reinventing the wheel!

This raises a community problem, of course, but I think that's best  
left to the community. If we put it, for example, into the OWL API,  
that will do a whole hell of a lot to raise awareness and to actually  
disseminate the solution.

> For example, I know a group that has users who check ontologies out  
> from
> svn and edit them.  This group of users all favor different tool sets
> and I think that one of their challenges is getting these tools to  
> work
> nicely together.  Putting an XML catalog in svn will only help if
> TopBraid, OntoEdit, Protege 4, etc all can read this format.


>   Having
> different repository formats for different tools is the status quo and
> is awkward.

Right, but AFAIK, there's no competing standard. So people should  
simply bug their implementors. Or write translators to and from XML  
Catalogs to the various private formats (e.g., Jena has one; once   
you have a wrapper/translator for jena and the owl api you are, for  
many purposes, done).

> So my question is, do the other members of the working group feel that
> XML Catalogs are an acceptable compromise or solution?

Good question.

>   If so is there
> some way that the owl working group can encourage tool builders to use
> XML Catalogs?  Or would we recommend low level mechanisms that  
> redirect
> the URL based IO independently of the tool set?

If you check the minutes for the..er...second f2f (in DC) you'll see  
that a bespoke mechanism was proposed there and rejected (with some  
mention of XML Catalogs there, as well).

I don't think there is much the working group can do at this point.  
There is a standard (XML Catalogs). Individually, we can recommend  
it. With a good strong push from people like yourself I think it  
could get uptake with OWL 2. But as its not part of the language,  
there's not much for us to do.

Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2009 19:53:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:09 UTC