Re: ontolex.owl

I am talking Protege.
For removing the import just remove the import axiom. For adding entities you just create a new entity without the default namespace. I can do that if you want.

sent by aldo from a mobile

> On 08/lug/2014, at 13:54, Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
> 
> Aldo,
> 
>  you mean remove the import from the owl file by deleting the import text or deleting the import in Protégé?
> 
> I do not know how to define the entries from the external ontology as new entities with their URIs, but I will try out and let you know ;-)
> 
> In any case, we seem all to agree on the strategy, but the implementation is still unclear, which is good. 
> 
> Stay tuned.
> 
> Philipp.
> 
> Am 08.07.14 13:38, schrieb Aldo Gangemi:
>> A couple of possibilities:
>> 
>> 1) (simpler) import the ontology, create the links, then         remove the import ;)
>> 2) (more accurate) define the entities from the external ontology as new entities with their URIs, then create the links
>> 
>> (1) is very quick, but the entities that remain “orphan” after the import removal are not typed.
>> 
>> Aldo
>> 
>>> On Jul 8, 2014, at 1:28:02 PM , Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
>>> 
>>> OK, the thing is: I am working with Protegé and I do not know how to create a subclass axiom without importing the ontology. 
>>> 
>>> If somene can help and remove the import but keeping the owl subclass axioms linking to semiotics.owl, then this would be the perfect solution I think.
>>> 
>>> Any volunteers? You can directly change the ontology in bitbucket and create a merge request.
>>> 
>>> Philipp.
>>> 
>>> Am 06.07.14 21:49, schrieb Armando Stellato:
>>>> Well, you can “mention” resources from another ontology, without having to owl:import it (write an owl:import statement between your vocabulary and the target one). This is mostly suggested when your ontology A is “connected” to another one B but does not strictly need B for computing the inferences which are inherent to its (of A) model.
>>>>  
>>>> With an owl:import, any tool  which performs automatic transitive closure of owl:imports, will download all of the target ontologies of the owl:imports and in turn, of their owl:imported ontologies. Not using it, prevents this from happen (though a user is always free to import ontologies of other mentioned resources manually).
>>>>  
>>>> In our case, if we put links to semiotics.owl in a dedicated module, then I would say it is not a problem to use an owl:import, because if you use that module, then you are explicitly willing to use semiotics.owl. If links are reported in the core module, then totally agree with John.
>>>>  
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>  
>>>> Armando
>>>>  
>>>> P.S: I’ve almost certainly said some redundant and trivial things up there: sorry in advance, just was not sure about the exact scope of the technical question
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> Da: Philipp Cimiano [mailto:cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de] 
>>>> Inviato: domenica 6 luglio 2014 21:26
>>>> A: public-ontolex@w3.org; public-ontolex@w3.org
>>>> Oggetto: Re: ontolex.owl
>>>>  
>>>> Hi John, all,
>>>> 
>>>>  ok so what does it mean technically "to include links to semiotics.owl ... avoiding an OWL import statement" ?
>>>> 
>>>> Philipp.
>>>> 
>>>> Am 03.07.14 06:44, schrieb John P. McCrae:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> We should include links to semiotics.owl and other relevant resources, but unless we are dependent on that model we should avoid using an OWL import statement
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> John
>>>> 
>>>> On 2 Jul 2014 21:02, "Philipp Cimiano" <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
>>>> Aldo,
>>>> 
>>>> right. Is anyone against including this alignment in the spec.
>>>> 
>>>> Please shout now or be silent forever.
>>>> 
>>>> Philipp.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Am 27.06.14 16:23, schrieb Aldo Gangemi:
>>>> Too late for the call, sorry.
>>>> Yes, that is what I intended: it’s bizarre that we include an alignment without even mentioning in the spec :)
>>>> A
>>>> 
>>>> On Jun 27, 2014, at 4:18:22 PM , Philipp Cimiano <cimiano@cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Aldo,
>>>> 
>>>> not sure I get your comment. Are you saying: If you import semiotics.owl,