Re: owl:imports and graph names and issue 38 (ISSUE-151)

Jeremy has responded, and, although he is not happy, he will be consolidating 
his response.   So I guess that this issue can be closed and the -comment 
marked as closed.  I will do so now, but the WG might want to discuss this 
issue during the call this week.

peter

On 10/14/2013 11:55 AM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
> Hi Peter
>
> Thank you for the response; although I think this response is somewhat 
> disingenuous: owl:imports is existing recommended practice; the introduction 
> of named graphs does introduce the question of how this existing practice 
> works with the new technology, and the response is an explicit silence. This 
> is particularly galling since it is a suggesting to ask an OWL Working 
> Group, that is currently closed, and which both of the previous incarnations 
> had many of the same participants as this group!
>
> David Wood gets it when he says:
> "I said the response is insufficient, as Jeremy is just using this as an 
> example to illustrate his point on graph naming. We need to respond to that, 
> and not on "owl:imports" specifically.:"
> so the punting to the (closed) OWL WG is not helpful, since the RDF WG has 
> not given sufficient guidance as to how to use the mechanisms of named graphs
>
> Formally, I am happy to let this drop as a separate issue, and I will wrap 
> up my continuing unhappiness into a single formal objection of your ISSUE 142
>
>
> Jeremy J Carroll
> Principal Architect
> Syapse, Inc.
>
>
>
> On Oct 11, 2013, at 1:11 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider 
> <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jeremy:
>>
>> This is an official response to your message about owl:imports and graph
>> names and issue 38,
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Jul/0022.html,
>> which is being tracked as ISSUE-151.
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> On 07/11/2013 12:15 PM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
>>> 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, 14 October 2013 19:16:24 UTC