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

Pat, Peter,

I suggest to spend a few minutes at the telecon to discuss this. The 
editors of Concepts should maybe take responsibility.

Note: I noticed there was no issue for this, so I created one [1].
Note 2: I noticed that the text of Issues 38 in the tracker had no link 
to the resolution; corrected that as well.

Guus

[1] https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/151

On 08-10-13 14:33, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> If the use of owl:imports and owl:Ontology is not central to Jeremy's
> concerns, then let him put forward an example illustrating his concerns
> that does not use OWL vocabulary.
>
> That is the essence of the reply, couched in W3C WG-speak.
>
> peter
>
> On 10/08/2013 12:01 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> Well, as you know, because I have said this in earlier emails on this
>> topic, I do not think this is an appropriate response, and that is is
>> close to being deliberately disingenuous. It is obvious that the use
>> of OWL is not central to the point that Jeremy is making here; but in
>> any case, the issue concerns the relationship between an IRI used as a
>> graph label in an RDF Dataset, and the same IRI used to refer inside
>> RDF, and this matter is outside the scope of the OWL WG.
>>
>> Pat
>>
>> On Oct 7, 2013, at 10:37 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>
>>> See below for a proposed response.
>>>
>>> peter
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 <jjc@syapse.com>
>>> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 12:15:56 -0700
>>> To: "public-rdf-comments@w3.org Comments" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 home
>> 40 South Alcaniz St.            (850)202 4416   office
>> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
>> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile (preferred)
>> phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2013 13:41:58 UTC