W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > July 2003

RE: review of wine.owl and food.owl

From: Smith, Michael K <michael.smith@eds.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:41:28 -0500
Message-ID: <2928D6FE55D5584390909578CAC8397D837BC4@usplm216.txpln.us.eds.com>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org


I have uploaded a new editors draft of Guide and wine.rdf and food.rdf.

Fixed everything outstanding (see note responding to Jeremy below).
Need to run through validators and candidate ref documentation to make
sure the i's are dotted.

- Mike

Responding to Jeremy's notes on wine and food.
 
0: A late MUST FIX

> food.owl contains many sameIndividualAs which have not been updated to
sameAs

DONE.  Had been done but not uploaded.

> 1: Base location

> I think it is probably more appropriate to use the base location that
> includes the publication URI so e.g. for the current WD it would be
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-guide-20030331/wine#
> ...

Pending my improved understanding of how and when to synchronize this.
I don't want an editor's draft out there with dangling references.

> 2: Changing suffix to .rdf
> 
> Given that we decided not to register a mime type I think we should be
using
> the .rdf suffix rather than a .owl suffix.

DONE.  

> 3: (if doing 1)
> If you decide to follow the suggestion in point 1, then it may be helpful
to
> 
> replace the namespace declarations with entity refs to minimize the points

> of change.
> 
> e.g.
> <rdf:RDF
>   xmlns     = "&vin;"
>   xmlns:vin = "&vin;"
>   xml:base  = "&vin;"
>   xmlns:food= "&food;"
>   xmlns:owl = "&owl;"
>   xmlns:rdf = "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
>   xmlns:rdfs= "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"

I haven't done this.  The question is, should I?  I like it and had intended
to do so, but it seems to me there was some past inhibition.

> 4: making food.owl conform with OWL DL
> (I can't remember if we have already discussed this - if you have already 
> rejected this suggestion apologies for repeating myself)
> ...
> This can be rectified in three different ways:
> 
> a) easy way
>     import wine.owl from food.owl

DONE.  And I added a comment in food.owl briefly explaining option b.

> b) harder way
>     include specifc type information in food.owl, e.g. above fragment

> 5: delete xmlns:xsd="...." from wine.owl
>
> This is not used 

But I use it in some of the text in the Guide.  So I left it.

> 6. Keeping wine.owl in OWL DL - imports object
> 
> Food.owl declares its own URI to be of type owl:Ontology using the
xml:base 
> and the idiom
>    <owl:Ontology rdf:about="">
> 
> The xml:base ends in a # which gets ignored when resolving the empty same 
> document reference, so that the subject of the rdf:type owl:Ontology
triple 
> is the URIref
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/guide-src/food
> 
> However the object of the owl:imports triple is
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/guide-src/food.owl
> 
> While the imports mechanism works, this uriref remains untyped and so the 
> document is in OWL Full.
> 
> Deleting the .owl suffix may work (it definitely will work if you use .rdf
> as your suffix). 

DONE.  Using .rdf suffix.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hpl.hp.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 1:45 PM
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: review of wine.owl and food.owl




A late MUST FIX

food.owl contains many sameIndividualAs which have not been updated to
sameAs

Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2003 14:41:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:01 GMT