On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Martin Hepp
(UniBW)<> wrote:
> Yves Raimond wrote:
> Ontology modularization is
> a pretty difficult task, and people use various heuristics for deciding what
> to put in the subset being served for an element. There is no guarantee that
> the fragment you get contains everything that you need.
> Sorry, just jumping on that, as this is something I am having quite a
> lot of troubles to understand (and since quite a long time). Maybe I
> am missing something obvious, but how does using owl:imports avoid
> this randomness? When using it, you're still hoping that dereferencing
> the object of owl:imports will get you the relevant information? I
> agree that owl:imports allows you to commit to a whole ontology
> instead of committing to single terms within an ontology, but I would
> argue that in most cases, you just want to pick a few terms in an
> ontology.
> There is no safe way of importing only parts of an ontology, unless you know
> that its modularization is 100% reliable.

Hmm, I am still not sure I get it. What do you mean by 100% reliable?
Can you be more sure that following an owl:imports link will lead you
to something more reliable?

> Serving fragments of likely relevant parts of an ontology for reducing the
> network overhead is not the same as proper modularization of the ontology.

But if the concise description of the term is sent back when you
dereference a term, you should be able to explore the whole ontology
(class to its subclass to the ontology it is defined in etc.) and
therefore commit to all the axioms in it if indeed you need to? How
would such mechanism be different than following an owl:imports link?

Sorry for all the questions, but this is really something I'm having a
hard time understand.

(Btw, all the ontologies I wrote or contributed to hold owl:imports
links, so I am really not against this practice, but I have to admit I
don't understand it)


Received on Monday, 22 June 2009 22:26:31 UTC