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

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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:08 UTC