- From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
- Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 21:27:09 +0200
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- CC: 'RDF WG' <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 14-10-13 21:15, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > 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. Right, thanks. We will review this during the telecon. Guus > > 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 19:27:38 UTC