- From: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
- Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 09:09:46 +0200
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Ah, the difference between SHOULD and MUST again. -Rinke On 28 mei 2008, at 08:30, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > On May 28, 2008, at 2:08 AM, Rinke Hoekstra wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I like the idea of being able to do this (very sensible on the >> semantic web), but doesn't this interact with the imports section >> as well? Unless of course by 'import' you meant 'load'... >> >> An RDF/XML file containing only PropertyAssertions does not contain >> an OntologyURI or VersionURI (as there is no owl:Ontology element), > > I proposed repairing the issue of there being no ontology element. > But yes, there is no OntologyURI or VersionURI. > >> so it cannot be imported from another ontology. > > There may very well be repairs needed to the imports and versioning > section. However, imports is by location, first, so locating the > document to import isn't a problem. I had a look and saw this: > > "When opening an ontology form a location u, OWL 2 tools should > check whether u matches the ontology or the version URI according to > the mentioned three constraints." > > So this is a "should", not a "must". > > There is also: "The ontology and the version URI, if present, > determine the physical location of an ontology O " > > Here we have "if present". > > Is there somewhere else where it is stated more strongly? > > -Alan > >> >> -Rinke >> >> PS Trackbot, this is related to ISSUE-21 >> >> On 28 mei 2008, at 05:49, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: >> >>> >>> We had, at some point discussed the situation where one might >>> import a document not explicitly purposed for OWL, but which could >>> still be valid OWL in combinaton with other axioms - for instance >>> a RDF/XML document consisting solely of PropertyAssertions. >>> >>> However, the RDF Mapping document currently precludes this: >>> >>>> First, patterns from Table 3 are matched to G in order to extract >>>> the ontology header — the ontology URI and the set of URIs of the >>>> imported ontologies. If no such pattern can be matched in G, or >>>> if the pattern can be matched to G in more than one way, the >>>> graph G is rejected as invalid. >>>> >>> >>> I suggest we relax this to: >>> >>> >>>> First, patterns from Table 3 are matched to G in order to extract >>>> the ontology header — the ontology URI and the set of URIs of the >>>> imported ontologies. If the pattern can be matched to G in more >>>> than one way, the graph G is rejected as invalid. >>> >>> and have the case where there is no match yield the ontology >>> header Ontology(). >>> >>> I don't know if the matching rules should be adjusted to consider >>> malformed headers as invalid. >>> >>> >>> -Alan >>> >> >> ----------------------------------------------- >> Drs. Rinke Hoekstra >> >> Email: hoekstra@uva.nl Skype: rinkehoekstra >> Phone: +31-20-5253499 Fax: +31-20-5253495 >> Web: http://www.leibnizcenter.org/users/rinke >> >> Leibniz Center for Law, Faculty of Law >> University of Amsterdam, PO Box 1030 >> 1000 BA Amsterdam, The Netherlands >> ----------------------------------------------- >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------- Drs. Rinke Hoekstra Email: hoekstra@uva.nl Skype: rinkehoekstra Phone: +31-20-5253499 Fax: +31-20-5253495 Web: http://www.leibnizcenter.org/users/rinke Leibniz Center for Law, Faculty of Law University of Amsterdam, PO Box 1030 1000 BA Amsterdam, The Netherlands -----------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2008 07:10:25 UTC