- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:08:21 +0100
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 15 Sep 2008, at 11:42, Jim Hendler wrote: > Rather than inlining below - let me answer Bijan and Ivan > My concern is that if I have an OWL 2 document in some format and > I move it to an RDF/XML document, or vice versa, then we'll have > interoperability problem with a "pure" Xinclude solution. What I > am suggesting is that we have some sort of directive (I am of mixed > mind as to whether it would be suggested or required) that is used > when Xinclude is used so there is something in the "OWL" (not in > the serialization) that would help pick up the interoperability in > this case > for example, I could imagine that in the Ontology directory, at > the level of owl:imports we could create owl:Xincludes or something > like that (or perhaps to say that when an Xinclude is used an > imports SHOULD (MUST?) also be used > something like that Let me try to tease out the various options. Corrections welcome. 1) (Alan's) We put a *triple* (i.e., change the graph) in. Advantages: "works"[1] for all RDF serializations. Disadvantages: Breaks syntactic layering; contaminates the graph and the structural model; *requires* a bespoke solution (thus precludes using standards like XInclude). 2) (Peter's) Raw Xinclude. We use Xinclude where it works (RDF/XML and OWL/XML) and let the other serializations introduce their own (equivalent) means of handling this. Advantages: Purely syntactic; uses standard mechanism; no ramifications for OWL Full, etc.. Disadvantages: Interop lag as other serializations and their implementation catch up. 3) (Jim's) We use XInclude put also provide a marker that XInclude was used. Ok, I'm not sure how to evaluate this design. If we have a triple per inclusion statement then we have Alan's solution *except* we also have a default implementation in the RDF/XML? But then we'd have the "same" information in two places. Jim could you elaborate your proposed design sketch a little more? BTW, I presume that the only alternative RDF serialization that matters is Turtle. Obviously, Manchester syntax and functional syntax could easily accommodate another directive. Cheers, Bijan. [1] It is tendentious of me to put "works" in scare quotes here. Alan thinks it works because it appears in all serializations without change and defers semantic handling to another layer. I think that if semantic handling is at another layer then, functionally speaking, it doesn't work.
Received on Monday, 15 September 2008 11:05:47 UTC