Re: proposed reply for Re: OWL S&AS comment - owl:Ontology mapping to/from RDF triples

Peter - am okay w/this with a few modifications (snipping everything 
else to save space)

At 12:33 PM -0400 5/14/03, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>    OWL Web Ontology Language Semantics and Abstract Syntax
>>    W3C Working Draft 31 March 2003
>>  If several OWL Ontologies are in the same RDF graph such as when they
>>  are taken from multiple sources (such as via owl:import), there will
>>  be no connection between the OWL Ontology and the components.
>Yes, agreed.  I'm not sure what, if any, remedy is possible or desired
>here.  I've explained that there are no semantic consequences of this
>What would you suggest as a possible avenue to explore?

i would not engage the comment raiser in a discussion in this case. 
I think I would suggest dropping the "what would you suggest" line

>>  Please can you explain why the OWL Ontology container-to-component
>>  relation in the abstract syntax is not passed through to the OWL
>>  transfer syntax.
>Largely because the OWL transfer syntax (RDF graphs as encoded in RDF/XML)
>is not a suitable vehicle for doing this.

True, but let's say why -- something like

The OWL transfer syntax uses RDF graphs as encoded in RDF/XML. 
Currently, there is no standard mechanism in RDF for representing the 
context of information, recommending instead the use of RDF 
annotations [point to RDF LC doc?]. These annotations were a factor 
in our WG deciding to add annotations to our language [point to issue 
5.26] and that is currently the mechanism to be used for this kind of 
container-to-component mapping.

p.s. on an implementation note - Dave Beckett has added a context 
mechanism to Redland, and my group uses that to do these sort of 
mappings on the new OWL-based Mindswap web pages
Professor James Hendler
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)

Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2003 12:48:52 UTC