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

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

From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 21:27:09 +0200
Message-ID: <525C458D.1020907@vu.nl>
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

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