Re: Exposure of the modularized SSN ontology as different files: demo

Hi Maxime

if you have any details to share in advance I'd be keen to see - I am
currently exploring an approach whereby / based URI references are used to
access ontologies derived from inheritance relationships of the URI term -
so that a registry oriented approach can be used for specialised RDF
Datacube components (and other definitions such as ISO Feature Types) where
inheritance is required, specialisations may be added at any time as needed
and no single ontology artefact could be maintained.

I am trying to make sense of the discussions at
https://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Imports

and wondering what is the actual minimal requirement for a response
document to be imported.

my (probably naive) understanding is that RDF does not directly support or
impose any import mechanism - therefore we just need all the statements to
be consistent with a domain of use - which being global simply means any
two documents generated by such a mechanism cannot contain statements
inconsistent with each other.

AFAICT the same holds true for owl - but do we actually need something
specific for owl:imports to be supported?

Cheers
Rob Atkinson

On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 at 02:04 Maxime Lefrançois <
maxime.lefrancois.86@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Armin, all,
>
> This mail is to confirm that I would be glad to show a demo about how one
> may expose modularized ontologies all having the same slash-based
> namespace, along with alignments to other ontologies.
>
> This could be during one of the next telecon, I believe it would be around
> October 4th.
>
> Following this demo, I believe it would be good to discuss about which
> should be the URIs of each module, and which of the modules should be given
> the namespace URI (and hence be the "default" one, available at the
> namespace URI).
>
> Kind regards,
> Maxime Lefrançois
>
>
>
>
>