- From: Daniel Elenius <daele@ida.liu.se>
- Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:50:40 -0700
- To: public-sws-ig@w3.org
Working with the OWL-S files, and struggling with imports in protege, I have looked at some details of the OWL-S files, in, well some detail :) And I want to discuss the following issue. All the OWL-S files now have an xml:base defined, such as xml:base="&process;" in Process.owl, where &process; is defined by <!ENTITY process "http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/1.1/Process.owl"> But ordinary namespace prefixes have a hash (#) in the end, such as: xmlns:grounding= "&grounding;#" where we have <!ENTITY grounding "http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/1.1/Grounding.owl"> Now, the question is, should xml:base URIs have the # in the end? In the examples in the OWL Web Ontology Language Guide (http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/), they do. For example: xml:base ="http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/wine#" Are these examples wrong? A lot of things suggest that they are. First, in the OWL Web Ontology Language Reference (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/), Appendix A, the owl ontology itself has: xml:base ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl" (no # in the end). The OWL Ref says that "The line <owl:Ontology rdf:about=""> states that this block describes the current ontology. More precisely, it states the current base URI identifies an instance of the class |owl:Ontology|. It is recommended that the base URI be defined using an |xml:base| attribute in the |<rdf:RDF>| element at the beginning of the document." and the OWL Guide that "The rdf:about attribute provides a name or reference for the ontology. Where the value of the attribute is "", the standard case, the name of the ontology is the base URI of the owl:Ontology element. Typically, this is the URI of the document containing the ontology. An exception to this is a context that makes use of xml:base which may set the base URI for an element to something other than the URI of the current document." I guess this still doesn't give conclusive evidence for either variant. But if we consider that "Syntactically, |owl:imports| is a property with the class |owl:Ontology| as its domain and range" (OWL Ref) *and* that the URI given to owl:imports is written _without_ the # (at least I have never seen it _with_ a #), *and* that the xml:base gives the URI to the owl:Ontology instance, then it looks like the xml:base should be written _without_ the #. Thus, the examples in the OWL Guide would be wrong. What do you think? /Daniel
Received on Thursday, 14 October 2004 21:50:42 UTC