W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > June 2009

Re: feedback sought: using owl:imports

From: Michael A Squillace <masquill@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:47:19 -0500
To: "ERT WG " <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF5C6E6CB0.491216D3-ON852575E4.004C8CEF-862575E4.005136ED@us.ibm.com>
I'll take them one by one, from my most preferred to my least preferred, 
followed by those I oppose. Also, (g) is an additional scenario:

> # Scenario C:
>   - EARL 1.0 Schema imports HTTP-in-RDF and Pointers-in-RDF
>   - HTTP-in-RDF imports Content-in-RDF
+1, simplest without introducing unforeseen complexities to importing dct 
and foaf

# Scenario G:
  - EARL 1.0 Schema imports HTTP-in-RDF, Pointers-in-RDF, and FOAF
  - HTTP-in-RDF imports Content-in-RDF
  - Content in RDF imports DCT
+1, but would want to understand the full implications of importing dct 
and foaf

> # Scenario A:
>   - do not adopt owl:imports (currently the EARL 1.0 Schema RDF is using 

+1: I looked for the thread that started all of this on the mailing list 
but could not find it. What was the original impotus for using imports? 
What do we gain, especially given our willingness to support multiple 
conformance levels with respect to which parts of the vocabulary are 
desirable to the user? Fortunately, the OWL spec makes it clear that 
applications may choose not to import the specified ontologies depending 
upon their needs.

> # Scenario B:
>   - EARL 1.0 Schema imports HTTP-in-RDF, Content-in-RDF, and 
Pointers-in-RDF
-1: HTTP in RDF already imports Content in RDF given earlier discussions 
and the fact that the imports property is transitive implies that, if EARL 
Schema imports HTTP in RDF and HTTP in RDF imports Content in RDF, then 
EARL Schema imports Content in RDF.

> # Scenario D:
>   - EARL 1.0 Schema imports HTTP-in-RDF, Content-in-RDF, 
> Pointers-in-RDF, DC, and FOAF
-1: for the same reason as pointed out for (b)

> # Scenario E:
>   - EARL 1.0 Schema imports HTTP-in-RDF, Content-in-RDF, 
> Pointers-in-RDF, DC, and FOAF
>   - HTTP-in-RDF imports Content-in-RDF, DC, and FOAF
>   - Content-in-RDF imports DC and FOAF
>   - Pointers-in-RDF imports DC and FOAF
-1: again, too redundant given transitive nature of imports; also, HTTP, 
Content, and Pointers do not use FOAF and could not foresee a need for 
FOAF in any of these other than possibly Pointers

# Scenario F:
  - EARL 1.0 Schema adopts HTTP-in-RDF, Pointers-in-RDF, DC, and FOAF
  - HTTP-in-RDF imports Content-in-RDF, DC, and FOAF
  - Content-in-RDF imports DC and FOAF
  - Pointers-in-RDF imports DC and FOAF
-1, same as for (e)

--> Mike Squillace
IBM Human Ability and Accessibility Center

W:512.286.8694
M:512.970.0066

External: http://www.ibm.com/able
Internal: http://w3.ibm.com/able



Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> 
Sent by: public-wai-ert-request@w3.org
06/29/2009 02:52 AM

To
public-wai-ert@w3.org
cc

Subject
feedback sought: using owl:imports






Dear group,

Ref: <http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#imports-def>

There is a request to use the owl:imports statement in the RDF files of 
the different EARL specifications. According to the OWL specification, 
the owl:imports statement is defined as follows:

  - "An owl:imports statement references another OWL ontology containing 
definitions, whose meaning is considered to be part of the meaning of 
the importing ontology."

We have the following scenarios, please indicate your preference to help 
move this discussion along:

# Scenario A:
  - do not adopt owl:imports (currently the EARL 1.0 Schema RDF is using 
rdfs:seeAlso which expresses a relationship between two ontologies)

# Scenario B:
  - EARL 1.0 Schema imports HTTP-in-RDF, Content-in-RDF, and 
Pointers-in-RDF

# Scenario C:
  - EARL 1.0 Schema adopts HTTP-in-RDF, and Pointers-in-RDF
  - HTTP-in-RDF imports Content-in-RDF

# Scenario D:
  - EARL 1.0 Schema imports HTTP-in-RDF, Content-in-RDF, 
Pointers-in-RDF, DC, and FOAF

# Scenario E:
  - EARL 1.0 Schema imports HTTP-in-RDF, Content-in-RDF, 
Pointers-in-RDF, DC, and FOAF
  - HTTP-in-RDF imports Content-in-RDF, DC, and FOAF
  - Content-in-RDF imports DC and FOAF
  - Pointers-in-RDF imports DC and FOAF

# Scenario F:
  - EARL 1.0 Schema adopts HTTP-in-RDF, Pointers-in-RDF, DC, and FOAF
  - HTTP-in-RDF imports Content-in-RDF, DC, and FOAF
  - Content-in-RDF imports DC and FOAF
  - Pointers-in-RDF imports DC and FOAF


Note 1: there was a remark on one of the calls about importing back, for 
instance that HTTP-in-RDF should import EARL 1.0 Schema. However, the 
OWL specification specifically points out that this would mean that 
HTTP-in-RDF and EARL 1.0 Schema are *equivalent*.

Note 2: the OWL specification points out that an imported ontology is 
part of the *meaning* of the importing ontology, which would make DC and 
FOAF directly part of EARL in scenarios D-F.


Please send your thoughts to the list to minimize telconference 
discussion time.


Regards,
   Shadi

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
   WAI International Program Office Activity Lead   |
  W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |
Received on Monday, 29 June 2009 14:48:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 29 June 2009 14:48:03 GMT