W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > October 2013

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

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 07:25:19 -0700
Message-ID: <525415CF.3090609@gmail.com>
To: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
OK, except that, although Jeremy says that this is an issue against Concepts, 
he is really asking for additional semantics for RDF.  Or at least that is 
what i think that he is asking for, as the message is not clear on this point.

peter

On 10/08/2013 06:41 AM, Guus Schreiber wrote:
> 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 14:25:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:17 UTC