- From: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@bio.ri.ccf.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 09:19:34 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- cc: w3c semweb hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Henry Story wrote:
> In that case both documents are in fact semantically identical.
>
> So what one wants is either
>
> - a way to specify the *vocabulary* the client understands, and have the
> sender send back content only in that vocabulary, or at least add some
> mappings from its vocab to the one understood by the client.
This has been discussed in a previous thread [1] that you might be
interested in which (In my estimation) covers what you are asking for with this
point:
..instance graph sent to client..
|
rdfs:isDefinedBy
|
V
McDonaldOntology (with owl:sameAs, etc.. mappings to AtomOWL)
|
owl:imports
|
V
AtomOWL ontology
That is, the appropriate 'trail' can be left by the sender/server for the
client to determine (by a form of regulated web closure) the mapping via
owl:sameAs. The mechanisms to express this trail are there (graph linking
vocabulary terms), but what is lacking is a social contract for
traversing distributed RDF graphs and their defining ontologies.
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-semweb-lifesci/2006Jul/0082.html
[2] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLS/WebClosureSocialConvention
Chimezie Ogbuji
Lead Systems Analyst
Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Cleveland Clinic Foundation
9500 Euclid Avenue/ W26
Cleveland, Ohio 44195
Office: (216)444-8593
ogbujic@ccf.org
Received on Monday, 24 July 2006 13:19:53 UTC