- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:39:05 -0500 (EST)
- To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
- Cc: "Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
I have implemented these changes except for the required change to Figure 1 (which Boris has to change, I think). My changes are documented in a note to ISSUE-15. peter PS: It would be nice to get the Figure sources in the Wiki. From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> Subject: ISSUE-15: Ontologies should not be required to include a URI Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:39:49 -0500 (EST) > > I believe that there has been general consensus that ontologies need not > include a name. However, I cannot find a good pointer to any > documentation on the discussion. > > So: > 1/ Does anyone have any good pointers to any discussion on this issue? > 2/ Absent that, does anyone have any problems allowing "anonymous" > ontologies, i.e., ontologies without a name. > > I propose that we allows OWL 1.1 ontologies to be anonymous, i.e., > without a name, and that we change Syntax to allow this in the syntax, > Semantics to fix up the semantics (if necessary), and RDF mapping to fix > up the mappings. > > This issue is related to the issue of imports, but I believe that any > imports solution can deal with anonymous ontologies (if only to the > extent that anonymous ontologies cannot be imported). > > Peter F. Patel-Schneider >
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 20:08:53 UTC