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

LANG: owl:import Option 3 Re: LANG: owl:import - Two Proposals

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 22:25:56 -0400
Message-ID: <053201c268f1$e00cfdb0$7c674544@ne.mediaone.net>
To: "Jeff Heflin" <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>, "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: "WebOnt" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

Jim Hendler wrote:

> I'm not the expert on this stuff, I hope Dan Connolly or Massimo will
> correct me if I'm wrong -- but I think going to a separate mime type
> would require much more motivation than this.  If you insist OWL can
> only be used through an XML schema, then I will point out this
> disagrees with the f2f decisions taken by the WG.  If you say no, we
> want to be RDF parsable, then we need to go by RDF rules.   I think
> the location of our metadata is not such an important issue that it
> is worth reopening the decisions (that's my opinion)

I agree. I would have been happy to work on a non-RDF XML syntax for OWL,
and indeed we might do this as one of the alternate presentation syntaxes,
but for the _RDF/XML version of OWL_, I think we ought stay with RDF/XML. I
wholeheartedly agree that any decision about registering an OWL content-type
ought be based on OWL as a whole and not depend on this particular issue.

I had to leave the last telecon early but we had started to talk about an
OWL _processing model_. My thinking on this would be that:

1) OWL be parsed _as RDF_ including triples whose predicate is owl:import
and whose object is a URI.
2) In a post parsing processing step, such triples (whose predicate is
owl:import) would result in the URI being resolved.
3) Any triples which result from the RDF parsing of the results of the URI
resolution (e.g. an HTTP GET) would be added to the set of RDF triples that
is to form the resultant OWL KB.

note: a given predicate/object pair of owl:import foo would be resolved
_once_ to avoid the problem of recursive importation.

Why would this cause a problem? (perhaps I missed something)

Received on Monday, 30 September 2002 22:44:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:35 UTC