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

Re: Summary of Issues 5.6 and 5.14

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 08:21:23 -0400
Message-ID: <003701c260a0$3c623c60$7c674544@ne.mediaone.net>
To: "Jeff Heflin" <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>, "WebOnt" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

Jeff Heflin wrote:
>
> c) Parse each ontology into its RDF graph, merge the graphs, and then
> apply the semantics to the merged graphs. I don't think I've heard
> anyone advocate this approach yet.
>
> d) Do inclusion at the RDF/XML syntax level. Methods for doing this have
> been proposed by Mike Smith [4] and Raphael Volz [5].
>

What is the essential difference between these approaches, except for the
mechanics? In both cases, you get a "merged" RDF graph to which the
semantics apply.

In (d) you either have to use existing RDF/XML parsers and their already
existing mechanisms for inclusion, or write a non-standard parser that has a
non-standard mechanism for inclusion -- I really don't think we need to get
into the business of writing OWL parsers do we?

In (c) we simply use the current RDF/XML parsers and then in a post-parse
transformation step, merge the parsed graphs into a single graph. That seems
pretty straightforward to me. ***

In either case, the semantics doesn't need to give a hoot of consideration
to where the triples came from.

Jonathan

*** this might count as the first advocation for this approach
Received on Friday, 20 September 2002 08:38:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:52 GMT