Re: [dxwg] Alignment / differentiation with OWL (#696)

I agree with @aisaac's characterisation of the `owl:imports` / `prof:isProfileOf` relationship (that we should have `owl:imports rdfs:subPropertyOf prof:isProfileOf`.

I've changed the paragraph @aisaac took issue with in the Related Work section (not PRed through yet though) to reflect this thinking to:

> Within OWL, the definition of owl:imports is not associated with any axioms that permit reasoning with it and it is mostly used by ontology editing software to manipulate ontology data by importing it from remote (online) locations, as a technical convenience mechanism. Since an ontology that imports another includes all the axioms of the imported ontology, data which conforms to an ontology x will necessarily conform to any ontology that x imports too. 

> When using OWL (and RDF [RDF11-CONCEPTS] & RDF Schema [RDF-SCHEMA]) it is possible to know, on a per-class or property basis, that data elements conform to particular ontologies through inspection of those elements. Data that uses OWL declares classes and properties as being of types – particular classes or properties – by using rdf:type – :myNewClassInstance rdf:type ex:SomeExistingClass – which claims the data conforms to the indicated class or property. Newly declared classes and properties in ontologies may also claim conformance to existing classes or properties by using rdfs:subClassOf or rdfs:subPropertyOf respectively. 

I'd like more discussion about `owl:imports rdfs:subPropertyOf prof:isProfileOf`, before adding it to the ontology, @rob-metalinkage ? 

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by nicholascar
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/696#issuecomment-558056965 using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 25 November 2019 09:01:15 UTC