Re: importing RDF and OWL

Jos de Bruijn wrote:
> <snip/>
> 
>>>
>>> Part of my motivation for this is that the context list should be 
>>> openly extensible. For example, I suspect the OWL-R fragment 
>>> currently being defined in the OWLWG may be very important for RIF. 
>>> We might even want to predefine an IRI to refer to it (so long as we 
>>> can do so without entangling the specs). That seems easier if there 
>>> isn't a predefined promotion hierarchy to fit into.
>>
>> The list of profiles is meant to be extensible, and I will update the 
>> text to reflect that (probably just before the telephone conference 
>> tomorrow :-)).
>> But we still need to deal with the situation where different profiles 
>> are specified, if only in the above-mentioned scenario of rule set 
>> imports.
> 
> I updated the text to say explicitly that the list of profiles is not 
> closed [1].  I also added a clause to deal with the situation that there 
> is not a single highest profile (basically, the ruleset should be 
> rejected).
> I hope this addresses your concern.

Sorry, I'm not sure that it does.

My point was that if the list of profiles is open then the concept:

    "lowest profile that interprets RIF-RDF combinations and is
     higher than or equal to all profiles in Profile"

is not well defined. New entries might, in principle, be lower than the 
previous lowest profile but higher than those in Profile.

It seems easier to me easier to say "if there is a single highest 
profile use that otherwise reject". At present the only intersection 
point between the two partial orderings is OWL-Full and if someone wants 
a rule which imports both a DL and an RDF chain and interprets it under 
OWL-Full then they can simply set the import profile to be OWL-Full for 
one or other import.

Dave
-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England

Received on Sunday, 25 May 2008 09:46:21 UTC