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

Re: Ontology header is a requirement - inconsistent with resolution of ISSUE-135?

From: Mike Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:01:13 -0500
Message-ID: <42485a40901281201l642bb322leedd7bccc3695410@mail.gmail.com>
To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 12:12, Mike Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com> wrote:
> From Sec 3.1.2 of the RDF Mapping Document [1],
>
> "Next, the ontology header is extracted from G by matching patterns
> from Table 4 to G. It MUST be possible to match exactly one such
> pattern to G in exactly one way."
>
> I believe this requirement is stronger than those present in the
> previous OWL standard (based on the tests such as [I5.2-001] ).

To close the loop on this thread...

This was discussed at the 2009-01-28 telecon (minutes at [1]).  It is
a recognized backwards incompatibility that was considered, during
discussion at F2F4, to be acceptable because it made it possible to
"include" RDF graphs without ontology headers using owl:imports (as
[ISSUE-135] requested), which is believed to be a more common use
case.

I will review the WebOnt test cases, including those which have
already been approved by the WG, to determine which were previously
considered syntactically DL and are changed by this constraint.

-- 
Mike Smith

Clark & Parsia

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-01-28
[ISSUE-135] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/135
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 20:01:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 28 January 2009 20:01:48 GMT