Re: feedback sought: using owl:imports

Hi all,

Here is my view.

Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
> Dear group,
> 
> Ref: <http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#imports-def>
> 
> There is a request to use the owl:imports statement in the RDF files of
> the different EARL specifications. According to the OWL specification,
> the owl:imports statement is defined as follows:
> 
>  - "An owl:imports statement references another OWL ontology containing
> definitions, whose meaning is considered to be part of the meaning of
> the importing ontology."

I read this differently than Shadi. I do not think the import statement
implies that you must adopt *all definitions*, but only those that you
refer to. Thus ...

> ...
> 
> # Scenario A:
>  - do not adopt owl:imports (currently the EARL 1.0 Schema RDF is using
> rdfs:seeAlso which expresses a relationship between two ontologies)

-1

> # Scenario B:
>  - EARL 1.0 Schema imports HTTP-in-RDF, Content-in-RDF, and Pointers-in-RDF

-1
IMHO we miss important bits, like DCT and FOAF

> # Scenario C:
>  - EARL 1.0 Schema adopts HTTP-in-RDF, and Pointers-in-RDF
>  - HTTP-in-RDF imports Content-in-RDF

-1

> # Scenario D:
>  - EARL 1.0 Schema imports HTTP-in-RDF, Content-in-RDF, Pointers-in-RDF,
> DC, and FOAF

-1
IMHO HTTP-in-RDF, Content-in-RDF, Pointers-in-RDF must also import

> # Scenario E:
>  - EARL 1.0 Schema imports HTTP-in-RDF, Content-in-RDF, Pointers-in-RDF,
> DC, and FOAF
>  - HTTP-in-RDF imports Content-in-RDF, DC, and FOAF
>  - Content-in-RDF imports DC and FOAF
>  - Pointers-in-RDF imports DC and FOAF

+1
*BUT* - I prefer dct prefix for DC Terms, to avoid confusion with legacy
apps
*BUT* - Content-in-RDF imports only DCT
*BUT* - HTTP-in-RDF imports only Content-in-RDF, DCT
*BUT* - Pointers-in-RDF imports only Content-in-RDF (I did not find any
ref to DCT)

> # Scenario F:
>  - EARL 1.0 Schema adopts HTTP-in-RDF, Pointers-in-RDF, DC, and FOAF
>  - HTTP-in-RDF imports Content-in-RDF, DC, and FOAF
>  - Content-in-RDF imports DC and FOAF
>  - Pointers-in-RDF imports DC and FOAF

-1

> Note 1: there was a remark on one of the calls about importing back, for
> instance that HTTP-in-RDF should import EARL 1.0 Schema. However, the
> OWL specification specifically points out that this would mean that
> HTTP-in-RDF and EARL 1.0 Schema are *equivalent*.

-1

> Note 2: the OWL specification points out that an imported ontology is
> part of the *meaning* of the importing ontology, which would make DC and
> FOAF directly part of EARL in scenarios D-F.

Like I said, I read this differently. In a sense, we need the import
statement to refer to the definitions of what we use from DCT and FOAF.

regards,
carlos

-- 
Dr Carlos A Velasco
  Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology FIT
  Web Compliance Center: http://webcc.fit.fraunhofer.de/
  imergo®: http://imergo.com/ · http://imergo.de/
  Schloss Birlinghoven, D53757 Sankt Augustin (Germany)
  Tel: +49-2241-142609 · Fax: +49-2241-1442609

Received on Monday, 29 June 2009 17:55:38 UTC