Re: ISSUE-24, ISSUE-21: Versioning language

On Jun 18, 2008, at 12:39 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

>> There would still only be one ontologyURI rdf:type owl:Ontology. I'm
>> not suggesting that each subject and object of an incompatibleWith  
>> has
>> an associated type triple. Same situation as with versionURI not
>> having one in the current mapping.
> But then what syntactic category are the subject and object of triples
> with property owl:incompatibleWith?

What is the syntactic category of a versionURI?

>> I'm worried about the case where you have an import that names vu, a
>>>> specific version. As I read it, ou, which might be a different
>>>> version of the same ontology, might be allowed to be loaded, which
>>>> would be incorrect.
> But the document is specifying how importing works, isn't it?   
> Importing
> works by accessing the ontology document at a URI, nothing about
> versions, etc.  Why then this must stuff related to versions?

I don't know why it must, but it does. Have you read it recently? I  
found I had to navigate to a number of places to collect the  
information I needed to understand what the policy is. In my previous  
mail I suggested it say something direct, like:

1) Import(u) means access the ontology at u.
2) If the accessed ontology has an ou, optional vu that one of them  
should be u.

>> The wording was inconsistent with the other wierd cases. For example
>> the case where two different ontologies were loaded, or where
>> incompatible ontologies were detected, it was considered  
>> syntactically
>> invalid. Why should this wierdness be handled differently?
> Because it is a different kind of wierdness.  The use of  
> "syntactically
> invalid" was previously related to ... syntactic validity.  Importing
> incompatible ontologies is, in my view, something different.

I am saying, regardless of what mechanism we choose to apply to the  
wierdness, that importing two versions in the same ontology series  
and importing incompatible ontologies should be considered the same  
kind of wierdness. These are the only two wierdnesses I'm considering  
relevant to this discussion.


Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2008 16:49:06 UTC