W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > February 2017

RE: OWL-Time - questions on Turtle file

From: <Simon.Cox@csiro.au>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 23:27:38 +0000
To: <ghislain.atemezing@mondeca.com>, <fd@w3.org>
CC: <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <e587f18163114044926c8288a7de1cdf@exch1-mel.nexus.csiro.au>
We need to be a bit nuanced about this.

I certainly agree that it is not necessary to have owl:imports merely to use terms from another vocabulary.

But if the intention is for the importing vocabulary to be a “superset” of the imported vocabulary, then owl:imports is totally appropriate, since that way anyone using the first gets all of the underlying components as well.


From: Ghislain Atemezing [mailto:ghislain.atemezing@mondeca.com]
Sent: Thursday, 2 February, 2017 04:19
To: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Cc: public-sdw-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: OWL-Time - questions on Turtle file

Le 1 févr. 2017 à 18:03, Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org<mailto:fd@w3.org>> a écrit :

1. It has the following RDF statement: <http://www.w3.org/2006/time> owl:imports <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/>
The Ontology refers to DC terms (contributor, creator), which seems good, but why does it "import" DC elements?

Good question.
I am not also a fan of owl:imports. We can maybe use this idea of “soft reuse” proposed by Stian here [1].


[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2017Jan/0049.html

Ghislain A. Atemezing, Ph.D
R&D Engineer SemWeb
@ Mondeca, Paris, France
Labs: http://labs.mondeca.com<http://labs.mondeca.com/>
Tel: +33 (0)1 4111 3034
Web: www.mondeca.com<http://www.mondeca.com/>
Twitter: @gatemezing
About Me:  https://w3id.org/people/gatemezing

Received on Wednesday, 1 February 2017 23:28:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:29 UTC