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

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

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 17:36:35 -0700
Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FE7A7FE5-2EAF-4B94-8BC8-5E014BFE5DCC@ihmc.us>
To: Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>

On Sep 11, 2013, at 10:03 AM, Peter Patel-Schneider wrote:

> Here is my proposed response to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Jul/0022.html
> Comments?

I dont think this is an adequate response. Jeremy's point is that there are common uses of datasets which rely on the presumption that the IRI naming a graph will denote the graph when used inside RDF, and our current specifications do not support this presumption, so that such uses will be at risk. The particular example he gives uses owl vocabulary, but the point applies to the semantics (or lack of semantics) of datasets, which is within our ambit. 


> peter
> Dear Jeremy:
> Even if it may be common to have RDF datasets that include owl:Ontology and
> owl:imports, RDF itself has nothing to say about their use or meaning, nor
> should it.  Therefore, the RDF WG will not make any change to its documents
> in response to this particular comment.
> If you feel that this is not a satisfactory resolution, please let us know.

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 Thursday, 12 September 2013 00:37:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:32 UTC