- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 19:01:34 -0400
- To: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
> I added a section [1] to the RDF and OWL compatibility document about > importing RDF/OWL and referring to the entailment regime. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC#Importing_RDF_Graphs_in_RIF Nice work. Here are a few comments (that get especially muddy around the promotion of contexts). Sorry I didn't reply earlier. * I can't parse the first sentence or two. I think there a few words missing. * There's no XML syntax given in BLD for import. What does the XML look like? What roles names do you propose? * I don't really like the document IRI's being used as Context IRIs. It's useful, but I see it raising some problems when you start to formalize the notion of Contexts. Let's make up some other IRIs and link them back to the documents. :-/ Something like http://www.w3.org/2008/rif-context#OWL_DL * I'm a little concerned about your notion of promotion in a hierarchy of entailment regimes. If we imagine a world with NAF, then promotion might be incorrect. Maybe add a flag, so users have to explicitely "import with context = X" or "import with context >= X" ? * What happens if OWL 2 includes a flag (as I hope/expect it will) indicating its own "Context"? In that (hopefully common) case, should users leave out the context parameter (not possible in the syntax), should they provide a fully generic one, or should whatever they provide be ignored? That is, is it an OVERRIDE for what the imported document claims to be, or a DEFAULT in case the imported document doesn't say? I *think* it should be DEFAULT. * I lean toward having just one Generic context. Is OWL Full more like RDF or more like OWL? I can't tell. I can owl:import some OWL into some RDF, or some RDF into some OWL, right? * Okay, I guess I'm general confused about whether and how promotion can work.... It sounds like I can't import some RDF triples and an OWL DL ontology at the same time.... I'll be forced to treat the DL ontology as OWL-Full, which is unimplementable. * Any idea what construct you'd want to use for loading some OO-style XML? Could we do that with Imports, too? * ... I think maybe "Context" can be thought of as "Language". You're loading some data/rules/knowledge, and naming the language it's written in, in case it's not properly labeled (as RDF data is not). Again, overall it seems quite good, but I don't understand well enough how contexts/language/etc is going to work in practice. -- Sandro
Received on Monday, 5 May 2008 23:03:38 UTC