Re: proposed response to Jeremy's comment on owl:imports and graph names and issue 38

See below for a proposed response.


On 10/06/2013 11:22 AM, Guus Schreiber wrote:
> On 12-09-13 05:27, Peter Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> Because Jeremy's comment uses the OWL vocabulary, and particularly
>> because it uses owl:imports, the RDF Working Group should not be even
>> considering making any changes to RDF in response to the comment.  It is
>> the business of some future W3C working group on OWL to determine
>> whether owl:imports can be reasonably extended to RDF datasets, and
>> definitely not the business of the RDF working group.
>> If Jeremy wants to provide some "common practice" where there is
>> inter-graph inference going on in RDF datasets that does not involve
>> vocabulary that is none of the RDF Working Group's business, then let
>> him bring that forward in a continuation of this comment (which we
>> should then consider as if it was brought forward during the LC period).
> I agree with Peter. I suggest to respond in this fashion.
> Guus

Hi Jeremy:

This is an official response to your message about owl:imports and graph
names and issue 38.

The practice that you illustrate concerns the OWL vocabulary for describing
and combining ontologies.  These facilities form a core portion of the W3C
OWL Web Ontology Language and are thus outside the scope of the RDF Working
Group.  The working group will thus not be addressing this issue. You may
wish to officially raise this issue against OWL, to be considered the next
time that OWL is updated.

If you feel that there is a related issue that within the scope of the RDF
Working Group, feel free to raise it.

Yours sincerely,
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
for the W3C RDF Working Group

From: Jeremy J Carroll <>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 12:15:56 -0700
To: " Comments" <>

 > This is a formal comment on RDF Concepts 1.1
 > I am concerned that the resolution of issue 38 leaves a disconnect.
 > In particular, I think it is common practice to have datasets
 > <g1>  {
 >     <g1> rdf:type owl:Ontology
 > }

 > <g2> {
 >     <g2> rdf:type owl:Ontology ;
 >           owl:imports <g1> .
 > }
 > and this practice is somewhat undermined by the resolution of issue-38 which
 > leaves a disconnect (^sd:name sd:graph) between the name and the graph.
 > Jeremy J Carroll
 > Principal Architect
 > Syapse, Inc.

Received on Monday, 7 October 2013 15:37:54 UTC