- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 11:29:24 -0400 (EDT)
- To: michael.smith@eds.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com> Subject: RE: LANG: syntactic version for imports (and other things) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 10:08:12 -0500 > Well now that I have slept on my flame I have a concrete suggestion. > > MOTIVIATION > > There is a desire to > > 1. indicate that a set of class, property, and individual definitions > are part of an ontology using a natural scoping mechanism (even if > this is an extra-logical relationship), > > 2. provide a strictly syntactic explanation for imports (at least I > would like to see this), and > > 3. maintain the basic RDF striping XML syntax. > > Note that RDF tools are going to need to make some slight changes > already (for example to support parsetype collection). > > SUGGESTION > > Define owl:ontology to be an extended alias for rdf:rdf. An OWL > ontology would then look like > > <owl:ontology about="" > xmlns="#" > xmlns:rdf=...> > <owl:imports about="" rdf:resource="uri1"> > ... > </owl:ontology> Good idea, particularly having OWL documents be RDF documents (or whatever the the top-level of RDF is called) but owl:ontology elements instead of rdf:RDF elements. However, then the imports stuff is a node element, and not a property element. > The 'about' attribute (ignored by RDF) defines a name for the > ontology. The standard cliche defaults to the document URL, > but we could insert an explicit URI if desired. > I believe that well engineered ontologies will want to be associated > with a URN so that they are not tied to a physical location. > I'm still not clear on whether we want to introduce an ontology > resource into the RDF triple world. We could always leave off the > 'about=""' in the imports clause and get an existential triple like > > _g001 owl:imports uri1 A node element doesn't work this way. > In either case, the expansion of the imports could then be made to > work in a natural way, but would require supporting multiple > owl:ontology expressions in one file. E.g. Expansion of imports doesn't have to result in a ``file''. It can be handled in a special way in the syntax. > <owl:ontology about="" > xmlns="#" > xmlns:rdf=...> > ... > </owl:ontology> > > <owl:ontology xml:Base="uri1" > xmlns:ns11="uri11" ... > xmlns:ns1i="uri1i" > about=""> > ... > </owl:ontology> > > - Mike
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2002 11:29:36 UTC