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

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

From: Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 20:27:52 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMpDgVxB=Pxm+nXsW_GpL1uNgh9j3JpBd785LqdeR5RLEB1XPg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
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).

peter



On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Pat Hayes <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 home
> 40 South Alcaniz St.            (850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile (preferred)
> phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 12 September 2013 03:28:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:16 UTC