- From: Paul Trevithick <paul@socialphysics.org>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:07:29 -0400
- To: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
- CC: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Cristiano Longo <cristiano.longo@tvblob.com>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
On 6/12/08 6:53 PM, "Peter Ansell" <ansell.peter@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. > As you have observed, the clear benefit of XRIs is their stability--a characteristic which derives from them being "names" for things and not mere "locations" of things. For example, I might put my wallet on my dresser or I might put it on my desk (different locations), but it is always my wallet. The trouble with ordinary URIs is that http://my.desk.com/wallet is different from http://my.dresser.com/wallet. There is no separation of concerns: naming vs. location. They are mixed together. So for the W3C to say that "there's no clear benefit" while , simultaneously works on (re-)inventing its own durable identifiers (as is underway in the past couple of years with Linked Data Hash URIs and 303 URIs, appears a bit disingenuous.
Received on Friday, 13 June 2008 10:34:59 UTC