- From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 18:17:11 -0000
- To: "'Web Ontology Language \(\(OWL\)\) Working Group WG'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hello, I have added another proposal for dealing with imports. I have produced a concrete wording that we might use; please take a look at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Imports#Boris.27s_Proposal_for_handling_imports The proposal is in its essence identical to Peter's, with a more explicit statement of what an implementation can do. It is also quite similar to Jeremy's proposal; the main difference is that I stated everything in more general terms than just caching: I believe that this is a more general than caching and it actually the issue of locating one's ontologies. Let me know if you have any comments. Regards, Boris > -----Original Message----- > From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Carroll > Sent: 04 February 2008 17:30 > To: Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG > Subject: imports > > > > Alan asked me to write up my proposal on caching. > > see > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Imports#Proposal-jjc-variant > > > I have placed it with Peter's since it is essentially the same, > in fact, I don't think I add very much to > > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Imports#Off-web_issues > > with the new text I offer. > > The text is: > > [[ > When using ontologies from the Web, tools MAY, as always, need a local > cache. In a typical cache local files are used which are copies of > remote ontologies retrieved with a Web GET operation. In this case, if > the tool has access to the Web and the cache copy is out-of-date with > respect to the Web copy, it SHOULD be replaced. Editing tools, being > used as part of a publication process MAY have local files which are > being prepared for a Web PUT operation. In this case, if the tool has > access to the Web then Web copies of such resources SHOULD be ignored. > To faciliate interoperation between tools using the same cache copies > (both GET-cache and PUT-cache), the RDF vocabulary in appendix-TBD MAY > be used (e.g. Jena location mapper). > ]] > > I note that Boris did not like the word 'cache' - I have tried to > clarify with 'GET cache' and 'PUT cache' ... maybe Boris would like to > suggest some other wording. > > I also carefully avoid specifying the file where the mappings is held. > This means that interoperability between tools requires some minimal config. > > This suggestion is likely to *not* work when the local copy of an > ontology is held in a database and not a file. > > Jeremy > > PS Approximate location mapper functionality > > ThisURI to ThatURI > > ThisURIPrefix to ThatURIPrefix > > but no regex replacements. > >
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2008 18:18:27 UTC