- From: golbeck <golbeck@gwu.edu>
- Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 15:49:57 -0400
- To: public-webont-comments@w3.org
We have some concerns with the semantics of owl:imports: 1) While clear, it doesn't have a desirable behavior in many, if not most cases 2) There is no alternative mechanism for sharing parts of ontologies, and no place holders for such 3) The explication in the Reference and Guide is confusing Concerns 1) and 2) were inspired by our work on converting the NCI terminology from its proprietary XML format to OWL. The resulting file (viewable at http://www.mindswap.org/CancerOntology) is 46MB and, because of the size, has broken nearly every existing tool we have tried to use. One solution we considered was breaking the terminology into different files. However, since the concepts defined therein are interlinked, each subfile would have to import all others. Because the current behavior of imports joins all terms from the imported ontologies, the separate files actually offer no size solution. When creating their own files, users may want to borrow a single term from a large ontology. With the current function of "imports", a small file that uses one term from cyc would become huge. As the semantic web becomes increasingly interlinked, a file with only a handful of concepts and a few imports could easily grow to be several gigabytes because of cascading includes. To address this issue, we would like to see an alternative that allows users to import only specific elements of an ontology. 3) With respect to specific documents: From OWL Reference, 7.2: """Note that the importing a document is different than creating a namespace reference. owl:imports do not set up a shorthand notation for names as does a namespace reference. On the other hand, the namespace reference does not imply that all (or even any) ontological terms from that namespace are being imported. Therefore, it is common to have a corresponding namespace declaration for any ontology that is imported.""" What is "creating a namespace reference"? It seems like you're confusing two different levels, the imports, which takes place at the *ontological* (or "graph") level, and the document level (i.e., where people write out the ontology). Furthermore, *namespace* declarations aren't the only way one can "suggest" important. Presumably *using* a term from some other ontology (via a uriref in an rdf:about or rdf:resource, or, higher level, as one side of an equivalence or subClass|PropertyOf relation. (There are folks who have written tools that try to import ontology documents that are "at" any URI mentioned in the current document.) From OWL Guide, 2.2.: """Importing another ontology brings the entire set of assertions provided by that ontology into the current ontology. In order to make best use of this imported ontology it would normally be coordinated with a namespace declaration. Notice the distinction between these two mechanisms. The namespace declarations provide a convenient means to reference names defined in other OWL ontologies. Conceptually, owl:imports is provided to indicate your intention to include the assertions of the target ontology. Importing another ontology, O2, will also import all of the ontologies that O2 imports.""" "In order to make best use..."? All the namespace declaration *can* get you is some syntactic shortcuts. It's as if you'd written, "In order to make best use of an imported ontology it would normally be coordinated with an entity declaration." Furthermore, in some "breaking the file up into pieces" situations, the ontology uri might not be the "namespace" of some, many, or even most of the terms in that ontology (e.g,. you import ontology A which merely imports B, C, D, and E -- i.e., it's a convenience). In other words, an ontology's uri doesn't have any necessary (or necessarily likely) connection to a prefixing substring of its terms' uris. And that's what's needed for the namespace dec to be useful. There's no scenario in which it affects what you can do, or do well, from the semantic point of view. -Jennifer Golbeck and Bijan Parsia
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 22:55:23 UTC