RE: [SKOS] primer on relationship between Concept Schemes and OWL Ontologies

I think if we ground our specs in the definition at
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-semantics-20040210/rdfs.html#owl_imports_
rdf> then we'll be ok.

Alistair.

--
Alistair Miles
Senior Computing Officer
Image Bioinformatics Research Group
Department of Zoology
The Tinbergen Building
University of Oxford
South Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3PS
United Kingdom
Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
Email: alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1865 281993


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-swd-wg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Antoine Isaac
> Sent: 14 April 2008 10:26
> To: Alistair Miles; SWD WG
> Subject: Re: [SKOS] primer on relationship between Concept Schemes and
> OWL Ontologies
> 
> 
> Hi alistair,
> 
> Fair enough: I thought
> > importing another ontology brings the entire set of assertions
> > provided by that ontology into the current ontology.
> 
> from [1] was enough, but but I had overlooked the following sentence in
> [2]:
> > Note that whether or not an OWL tool must load an imported ontology
> > depends on the purpose of the tool. If the tool is a complete
> reasoner
> > (including complete consistency checkers) then it must load all of
> the
> > imported ontologies. Other tools, such as simple editors and
> > incomplete reasoners, may choose to load only some or even none of
> the
> > imported ontologies.
> 
> Which clearly calls for more hair splitting than what we had
> anticipated.
> Note that I'm not very comfortable with two OWL documents saying quite
> different things on a same matter. I hope we'll avoid this between the
> SKOS Reference and the Primer...
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Antoine
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#OntologyHeaders
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#imports-def
> 
> > Apologies for not getting to this sooner.
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-skos-primer-20080221/
> >
> > == Sub-Section 3.1 ==
> >
> > """
> > If an application concerned with provenance information (see Section
> 4.5)
> > reads this statement, it will infer that the triples present in the
> original
> > concept scheme are also "stated" by the newly defined concept scheme.
> > """
> >
> > I think it would be more appropriate to say something like: "If an
> > application reads this statement, it may request a representation of
> the
> > original concept scheme (via its URI), process the response (if any)
> into an
> > RDF graph, and include that graph within the representation of the
> extended
> > concept scheme." ... or something like that. This feels like
> splitting
> > hairs, but I don't think an OWL imports statement licenses any formal
> > "inferences" as such. The OWL Reference and OWL Semantics both have
> some
> > fairly careful language about what owl:imports means.
> >
> > Apart from that, no comments other than those stated in my original
> review
> > [1].
> >
> > == Sub-Section 3.3 ==
> >
> > I have no comments on the content. My only thought is, this sub-
> section
> > could be moved to section 4.
> >
> > ACTION: Alistair and Guus to check the text in the primer on
> relationship
> > between Concept Schemes and OWL Ontologies. [recorded in
> > http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action13]
> > --done
> >
> > Alistair.
> >
> > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-
> wg/2008Feb/0093.html
> > --
> > Alistair Miles
> > Senior Computing Officer
> > Image Bioinformatics Research Group
> > Department of Zoology
> > The Tinbergen Building
> > University of Oxford
> > South Parks Road
> > Oxford
> > OX1 3PS
> > United Kingdom
> > Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
> > Email: alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk
> > Tel: +44 (0)1865 281993
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
>

Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 09:32:19 UTC