W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > October 2013

Re: owl:imports and graph names and issue 38 (ISSUE-151)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:11:08 -0700
Message-ID: <52585B5C.80200@gmail.com>
To: Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>
CC: "public-rdf-comments@w3.org Comments" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Hi Jeremy:

This is an official response to your message about owl:imports and graph
names and issue 38,
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Jul/0022.html,
which is being tracked as ISSUE-151.

The practice that you illustrate concerns the OWL vocabulary for describing
and combining ontologies.  These facilities form a core portion of the W3C
OWL Web Ontology Language and are thus outside the scope of the RDF Working
Group.  The working group will thus not be addressing this issue. You may
wish to officially raise this issue against OWL, to be considered the next
time that OWL is updated.

If you feel that there is a related issue that within the scope of the RDF
Working Group, feel free to raise it.

Yours sincerely,
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
for the W3C RDF Working Group


On 07/11/2013 12:15 PM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
> This is a formal comment on RDF Concepts 1.1
>
> I am concerned that the resolution of issue 38 leaves a disconnect.
>
> In particular, I think it is common practice to have datasets
>
>
> <g1>  {
>
>      <g1> rdf:type owl:Ontology
> }
>
>
> <g2> {
>
>
>      <g2> rdf:type owl:Ontology ;
>            owl:imports <g1> .
> }
>
>
> and this practice is somewhat undermined by the resolution of issue-38 which leaves a disconnect (^sd:name sd:graph) between the name and the graph.
>
>
> Jeremy J Carroll
> Principal Architect
> Syapse, Inc.
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 11 October 2013 20:11:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 11 October 2013 20:11:37 UTC