Re: on media types for OWL (5.13)

On Tue, 2002-10-29 at 19:57, Jonathan Borden wrote:
> > >
> > > I would say that application/owl+xml would indicate that, for example,
> for
> > > Fast OWL, the OWL model theory were to be the defining model theory --
> this
> > > 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.

Well, I tried to give it.
Maybe I'll find to give it again, with more clarity.
But it's not quite a matter of "logic"; i.e. it's
not really a 100% compelling rational argument; it's just
a bunch of factors that I find persuasive. So I'm
not very motivated to try much harder at it; either
folks have similar intuitions or they don't.

Rather than trying to convince everybody to think
like me, I think it's more likely that I'll get the WG to agree
that all three (app/xml, app/rdf, app/owl) are worth trying
out at this stage.

> > > 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?

No. It applies to "informal" vocabularies like dublin core,
RSS, etc. as much as owl or SQL.

> ...
> > >
> > > 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.

No, you're not being dense.

> Jonathan
Dan Connolly, W3C

Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2002 17:12:30 UTC