W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > October 2002

Re: on media types for OWL (5.13)

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 19:43:07 -0400
Message-ID: <005901c27c80$4a278fc0$7c674544@ne.mediaone.net>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

Dan Connolly wrote:

>
> On Wed, 2002-10-23 at 21:36, Jonathan Borden wrote:
> > Dan Connolly wrote:
> [...]
> > > So I propose that the reference document specify
> > > application/rdf+xml as a suitable media
> > > type for OWL KBs written in RDF/xml syntax.
> > >
> >
> > I'd really like a better story about how such a media type says anything
at
> > all relevent to OWL.
>
> Hmm... yes, well, I think I'd like a better story too.
> But I have spent quite a bit of time trying to tell
> the story, and it doesn't get much better no matter
> how hard I try.

Actually, below we are getting somewhere.

[snip]

>
> * to use app/xml is not to assert the content of
> the document, at least not a strongly as app/rdf;
> you might use it for test cases and such where
> you don't really mean to assert the contents,
> and you expect the namespace pointers, stylesheets,
> or whatever you put in your document is enough
> for your audience to figure out what they
> need to know about it.
>
> * to use app/rdf is to buy into the RDF concepts
> spec (cited from the app/rdf registration doc);
> i.e. to explicitly license folks to add related documents
> to the premises of arguments based on your document
> (in particular, if this doc or some document
> it rests on uses owl, the owl spec becomes
> part of the premise of your argument).

This is a good distinction. To use application/rdf+xml says that the
enclosed statements are 'asserted' according to the the RDF model theory.
This seems to argue for app/rdf _at the very least for Large OWL_. Ok you
have me convinced that application/xml is not appropriate (application/xml
indicates no particular semantics)

>
> * to use app/owl is ... umm... hmm...
>
> I don't really see why anybody would choose app/owl;
> maybe somebody who likes that idea could fill in
> the blanks there?

I would say that application/owl+xml would indicate that, for example, for
Fast OWL, the OWL model theory were to be the defining model theory -- this
could also be applied to Large OWL, the point being that the media type
registration should indicate how the document is to be interpreted i.e.
which semantics ought apply.

>Somebody would have to write
> up an internet media type specification for app/owl
> and get it reviewed in the relevant IETF fora
> before it's all said and done. I'm not inclined
> to do so.

Hmmm... doesn't the TAG suggest that WGs draft media type specifications
when appropriate? ... this is not to say that application/rdf+xml is not
appropriate, but rather that if application/owl+xml is also appropriate or
more appropriate in certain situations, we ought not be too worried about
issuing an I-D/media type specification. I'd certainly be able to write one
up if we decide to go that route. How does the W3C suggest that WGs "get it
reviewed in the relevent IETF fora" given that it is being suggested that
WGs do this? Would an email from the WG to some email address be sufficient?

>
> Current draft of the RDF app media type seems to be:
>   http://www.aaronsw.com/2002/rdf-mediatype.html
> hmm... doesn't cite the concepts spec yet...
>

I'd reference that, and reference the criteria for deciding when to use
app/rdf vs. app/owl, and reference the OWL MT. Not a long document I
imagine.

The main decision ought be: ought specs that define their own MT (model
theory) register their own MT (media type).

Jonathan
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 20:02:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:53 GMT