- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:14:25 +0100
- To: "Matthew Pocock" <matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
I'm only beginning to get up to speed on OWL 1.1, but a lot of what you describe does sound in more familiar territory, so here's a few cents worth - On 31/10/2007, Matthew Pocock <matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk> wrote: [snip] I would suggest treating the material as linked data [1] rather than hiding the messages in SOAP. This doesn't necessarily help with the immediate problem, though describing the sets in a manner akin to named graphs may suggest an approach that's consistent across both the payload and the protocol. Our system allows a certain amount of slop in what gets > passed over the wire, within defined bounaries, so two identical requests > against an identical service may legitimately return different sets of > axioms, without the requester becomming confused or behaving differently. That doesn't sound dissimilar to the usual WebArch notions of a resource and its representations. My homepage is the same resource, despite it being very variable slop. Why not give "these sets of axioms" a URI..? > Hence, the only thing that uniquely identifies the set of axioms is the set > of axioms itself. ...but if that truly is the case, then your only option would appear to be to use an opaque datatype, probably represented logically as a functional property of something you can name as a resource, physically as a block of XML. > So, the things we are moving about: > > a) have no physical location, ever (they are generated by software, streamed, > consumed by software) Way too metaphysical for me ;-) > b) have no logical URI that identifies them, or any other identifier smaller > than themselves ...yet? > c) are a sub-set of the axioms entailed by some other ontology, which does > have a logical URI Sounds like there may be a subsumption relation there somewhere. > Is there some other top-level element other than Ontology that better fulfills > these needs? Offhand, I've now idea, but I see not reason not to define one. > If not, is there some standard way to indicate to tools that the ontology has > no physical or logical URI, but is a) a sub-set of the axioms in another > ontology or b) the axioms entailed by another ontology or c) a sub-set of the > axioms entailed by another ontology? RDF uses bnodes where naming is difficult or inappropriate (and they I believe are defined as existentials). I'm not sure under what circumstances the OWL 1.1/RDF mapping holds, but it might be worth exploring. Cheers, Danny. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_Data -- http://dannyayers.com
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2007 20:14:34 UTC