Re: [SKOS] primer on relationship between Concept Schemes and OWL Ontologies

Hi alistair,

Fair enough: I thought
> importing another ontology brings the entire set of assertions 
> provided by that ontology into the current ontology.

from [1] was enough, but but I had overlooked the following sentence in [2]:
> Note that whether or not an OWL tool must load an imported ontology 
> depends on the purpose of the tool. If the tool is a complete reasoner 
> (including complete consistency checkers) then it must load all of the 
> imported ontologies. Other tools, such as simple editors and 
> incomplete reasoners, may choose to load only some or even none of the 
> imported ontologies.

Which clearly calls for more hair splitting than what we had anticipated.
Note that I'm not very comfortable with two OWL documents saying quite 
different things on a same matter. I hope we'll avoid this between the 
SKOS Reference and the Primer...

Thanks,

Antoine

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#OntologyHeaders
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#imports-def

> Apologies for not getting to this sooner.
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-skos-primer-20080221/
>
> == Sub-Section 3.1 ==
>
> """
> If an application concerned with provenance information (see Section 4.5)
> reads this statement, it will infer that the triples present in the original
> concept scheme are also "stated" by the newly defined concept scheme.
> """
>
> I think it would be more appropriate to say something like: "If an
> application reads this statement, it may request a representation of the
> original concept scheme (via its URI), process the response (if any) into an
> RDF graph, and include that graph within the representation of the extended
> concept scheme." ... or something like that. This feels like splitting
> hairs, but I don't think an OWL imports statement licenses any formal
> "inferences" as such. The OWL Reference and OWL Semantics both have some
> fairly careful language about what owl:imports means.
>
> Apart from that, no comments other than those stated in my original review
> [1].
>
> == Sub-Section 3.3 ==
>
> I have no comments on the content. My only thought is, this sub-section
> could be moved to section 4.
>
> ACTION: Alistair and Guus to check the text in the primer on relationship
> between Concept Schemes and OWL Ontologies. [recorded in
> http://www.w3.org/2008/01/29-swd-minutes.html#action13]
> --done
>
> Alistair.
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swd-wg/2008Feb/0093.html
> --
> Alistair Miles
> Senior Computing Officer
> Image Bioinformatics Research Group
> Department of Zoology
> The Tinbergen Building
> University of Oxford
> South Parks Road
> Oxford
> OX1 3PS
> United Kingdom
> Web: http://purl.org/net/aliman
> Email: alistair.miles@zoo.ox.ac.uk
> Tel: +44 (0)1865 281993
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 09:26:50 UTC