W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > October 2002

Re: on media types for OWL (5.13)

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 20:57:57 -0500
Message-ID: <004401c27fb7$c5c303f0$7c674544@ne.mediaone.net>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

> >
> > I would say that application/owl+xml would indicate that, for example,
> > Fast OWL, the OWL model theory were to be the defining model theory --
> > could also be applied to Large OWL,
> No, you get that just from app/rdf.

If that is the case, then app/rdf is fine. I don't entirely understand how
this works, but perhaps this is a consequence of layering  for Fast OWL as
well as Large OWL. When I asked for a 'better story' I am really asking for
the logic that gets me to the OWL model theory from app/rdf.

> > the point being that the media type
> > registration should indicate how the document is to be interpreted i.e.
> > which semantics ought apply.
> The semantics of all the properties used in an RDF document ought
> to apply.
> If you mix owl with, say, a mapping of SQL schemas into RDF,
> the formal specification of the SQL properties applies
> (i.e. can be used to justify conclusions) too.

I guess that I just don't understand this (really). Does this have something
to do with LBase?


> >
> > The main decision ought be: ought specs that define their own MT (model
> > theory) register their own MT (media type).
> Hmm... that doesn't seem to allow for mixing.
> But I suppose I could live with specifying app/owl and seeing
> how it gets used.

Perhaps, but I am not really pushing for app/owl as long as what you say
above holds (that there is a path from app/rdf to the OWL model theory). If
that path were well described then I would be totally happy with app/rdf --
perhaps I am just being dense.

Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 21:17:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:37 UTC