- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:23:17 -0400
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: Cristiano Longo <cristiano.longo@tvblob.com>, semantic-web@w3.org
On Jun 12, 2008, at 12:59 PM, Dan Brickley wrote: > 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? I'd just publish the DL version at a known location, the full at the standard location, and use owl:imports to include the DL version in the Full version. In OWL 2 you will be able to say something like: import foaf (specifying the standard URI) versioninfo foaf-dl (specifying the location of the DL) version. or simply (and perhaps better) import foaf-dl On the question of discovery, I'm not aware of a mechanism, but it may be worth thinking about. But there shouldn't be a block to proceeding in the manner I suggest for the moment. -Alan > > Dan > > -- > http://danbri.org/
Received on Friday, 13 June 2008 14:24:01 UTC