- From: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:53:58 +1000
- To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "Cristiano Longo" <cristiano.longo@tvblob.com>, semantic-web@w3.org
2008/6/13 Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>: > > Alan Ruttenberg wrote: >> >> It's OWL, but not OWL-DL. >> I would very much like there to be an OWL-DL version too, or at least to >> factor it into two components - an OWL-DL portion, and a set of further >> axioms that are imported by OWL full users. > > I've wondered about how best to do this: are there any discovery conventions > for finding an OWL DL flavour of a vocabulary which otherwise also has OWL > Full variants at the namespace URI? Or vice-versa? Could eg. editors read > HTML or RDF/XML from the namespace URI, poke around and find the URL to a > pure DL subset? > Not as far as I know. I was chatting to Alan about this recently but the best I could suggest was an improvement in OWL 2.0 where people specify profiles (in RDF) within ontologies which people can choose when they wish to interpret the ontology. I know that W3C has been against the use of XRI's, because they have no clear benefit, but in the case of being able to specify the profile "flavour" of an ontology that you want to use, it would be beneficial to be able to say it without changing the URI, something with XRI's apparently provide. Cheers, Peter
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2008 22:54:33 UTC