Calling the rdf file an ontology?

Hi all,

I have two questions on what should be called as owl:Ontology.

(1)
Let's assume we have the following assertion:

<http://ont.example.org/myOnt/example> rdf:type owl:Ontology.  ...(A)

Now if the vocabulary is defined in http://ont.example.org/myOnt/example.rdf,
and what is retrieved by 

GET /myOnt/example HTTP/1.1
Host: ont.example.org
Accept: application/rdf+xml

is http://ont.example.org/myOnt/example.rdf,

then does the following make sense and mean the same thing as (A)?

<http://ont.example.org/myOnt/example.rdf> rdf:type owl:Ontology.  ...(B)

If (A) and (B) mean different things, then which should we use in this situation?

Will the decision change if one receives its accompanying html document
(example.html) by 

GET /myOnt/example HTTP/1.1
Host: ont.example.org
Accept: text/html

or

GET /myOnt/example HTTP/1.1
Host: ont.example.org
Accept: application/xhtml+xml

?

(2)
If (A) and (B) above mean different things, does the following make any sense?

-----
<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">

    <Ontology rdf:about="http://ont.example.org/myOnt/example.rdf"/>

    <Class rdf:about="http://ont.example.org/myOnt/example"/>

</rdf:RDF>
-----
(this should be in /myOnt/example.rdf )

What I want to do is to put each terms in the vocabulary in mind
into separate files defining only that term and name the file 
after the term name. But I want to remain in DL.
That's why I don't write

    <Ontology rdf:about="http://ont.example.org/myOnt/example"/>

in the example above (to separate the Class name from Ontology name).

Is that so weird a practice?

-- 
Yoshio Fukushige <fukushige.yoshio@jp.panasonic.com>
Network Development Center,
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.

Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2007 10:36:08 UTC