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

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

From: Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:55:09 -0700
Cc: "public-rdf-comments@w3.org Comments" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-Id: <741A21A3-B98E-47A7-B4F0-6842114C1E60@syapse.com>
To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Hi Peter

Thank you for the response; although I think this response is somewhat disingenuous: owl:imports is existing recommended practice; the introduction of named graphs does introduce the question of how this existing practice works with the new technology, and the response is an explicit silence. This is particularly galling since it is a suggesting to ask an OWL Working Group, that is currently closed, and which both of the previous incarnations had many of the same participants as this group!

David Wood gets it when he says:
"I said the response is insufficient, as Jeremy is just using this as an example to illustrate his point on graph naming. We need to respond to that, and not on "owl:imports" specifically.:"
so the punting to the (closed) OWL WG is not helpful, since the RDF WG has not given sufficient guidance as to how to use the mechanisms of named graphs

Formally, I am happy to let this drop as a separate issue, and I will wrap up my continuing unhappiness into a single formal objection of your ISSUE 142


Jeremy J Carroll
Principal Architect
Syapse, Inc.



On Oct 11, 2013, at 1:11 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 Monday, 14 October 2013 18:55:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 14 October 2013 18:55:37 UTC