- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:34:59 +0000
- To: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 24 Nov 2008, at 15:44, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > My only concern about having the structural specification only allow > for absolute URIs is that it is common idiom to use relative URIs in > imports statements. I've never seen such. Ever, actually. Could you provide some pointers? I mean, I see how it would work and why one would do that (just like relative URIs to imgs). But I've never seen it in OWL. Doesn't seem to be a particularly *common* idiom. As tools wouldn't have respected them before, by and large, since RDF absolutized, I'd be very surprised if people relied on that. > Doing so allows one to move a hierarchy of > ontologies from one place to another without having to rewrite all the > import statements. If the structural specification only has absolute > URIs and serializes a document that uses relative URIs in this way, > that will no longer work as the resultant imports will use full URIs. [snip] Well, it does seem possible that an implementation will maintain various serialization specific information. Or, in fact, if you are going through a tool anyway, you could always reserialize to the new location. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 24 November 2008 16:32:02 UTC