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

Re: proposed response to Jeremy's comment on owl:imports and graph names and issue 38

From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 20:22:36 +0200
Message-ID: <5251AA6C.6000801@vu.nl>
To: Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>


On 12-09-13 05:27, Peter Patel-Schneider wrote:
> Because Jeremy's comment uses the OWL vocabulary, and particularly
> because it uses owl:imports, the RDF Working Group should not be even
> considering making any changes to RDF in response to the comment.  It is
> the business of some future W3C working group on OWL to determine
> whether owl:imports can be reasonably extended to RDF datasets, and
> definitely not the business of the RDF working group.
>
> If Jeremy wants to provide some "common practice" where there is
> inter-graph inference going on in RDF datasets that does not involve
> vocabulary that is none of the RDF Working Group's business, then let
> him bring that forward in a continuation of this comment (which we
> should then consider as if it was brought forward during the LC period).

I agree with Peter. I suggest to respond in this fashion.
Guus

>
> peter
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us
> <mailto:phayes@ihmc.us>> wrote:
>
>
>     On Sep 11, 2013, at 10:03 AM, Peter Patel-Schneider wrote:
>
>      > Here is my proposed response to
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Jul/0022.html
>      >
>      > Comments?
>
>     I dont think this is an adequate response. Jeremy's point is that
>     there are common uses of datasets which rely on the presumption that
>     the IRI naming a graph will denote the graph when used inside RDF,
>     and our current specifications do not support this presumption, so
>     that such uses will be at risk. The particular example he gives uses
>     owl vocabulary, but the point applies to the semantics (or lack of
>     semantics) of datasets, which is within our ambit.
>
>     Pat
>
>      >
>      > peter
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > Dear Jeremy:
>      >
>      > Even if it may be common to have RDF datasets that include
>     owl:Ontology and
>      > owl:imports, RDF itself has nothing to say about their use or
>     meaning, nor
>      > should it.  Therefore, the RDF WG will not make any change to its
>     documents
>      > in response to this particular comment.
>      >
>      > If you feel that this is not a satisfactory resolution, please
>     let us know.
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------
>     IHMC (850)434 8903 <tel:%28850%29434%208903> home
>     40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 <tel:%28850%29202%204416>   office
>     Pensacola (850)202 4440 <tel:%28850%29202%204440>   fax
>     FL 32502 (850)291 0667 <tel:%28850%29291%200667>   mobile (preferred)
>     phayes@ihmc.us <mailto:phayes@ihmc.us> http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 6 October 2013 18:23:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 6 October 2013 18:23:05 UTC