- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 02:30:24 -0400
- To: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
- Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On May 28, 2008, at 2:08 AM, Rinke Hoekstra wrote: > Hi, > > I like the idea of being able to do this (very sensible on the > semantic web), but doesn't this interact with the imports section > as well? Unless of course by 'import' you meant 'load'... > > An RDF/XML file containing only PropertyAssertions does not contain > an OntologyURI or VersionURI (as there is no owl:Ontology element), I proposed repairing the issue of there being no ontology element. But yes, there is no OntologyURI or VersionURI. > so it cannot be imported from another ontology. There may very well be repairs needed to the imports and versioning section. However, imports is by ___location, first, so locating the document to import isn't a problem. I had a look and saw this: "When opening an ontology form a ___location u, OWL 2 tools should check whether u matches the ontology or the version URI according to the mentioned three constraints." So this is a "should", not a "must". There is also: "The ontology and the version URI, if present, determine the physical ___location of an ontology O " Here we have "if present". Is there somewhere else where it is stated more strongly? -Alan > > -Rinke > > PS Trackbot, this is related to ISSUE-21 > > On 28 mei 2008, at 05:49, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > >> >> We had, at some point discussed the situation where one might >> import a document not explicitly purposed for OWL, but which could >> still be valid OWL in combinaton with other axioms - for instance >> a RDF/XML document consisting solely of PropertyAssertions. >> >> However, the RDF Mapping document currently precludes this: >> >>> First, patterns from Table 3 are matched to G in order to extract >>> the ontology header � the ontology URI and the set of URIs of the >>> imported ontologies. If no such pattern can be matched in G, or >>> if the pattern can be matched to G in more than one way, the >>> graph G is rejected as invalid. >>> >> >> I suggest we relax this to: >> >> >>> First, patterns from Table 3 are matched to G in order to extract >>> the ontology header � the ontology URI and the set of URIs of the >>> imported ontologies. If the pattern can be matched to G in more >>> than one way, the graph G is rejected as invalid. >> >> and have the case where there is no match yield the ontology >> header Ontology(). >> >> I don't know if the matching rules should be adjusted to consider >> malformed headers as invalid. >> >> >> -Alan >> > > ----------------------------------------------- > Drs. Rinke Hoekstra > > Email: hoekstra@uva.nl Skype: rinkehoekstra > Phone: +31-20-5253499 Fax: +31-20-5253495 > Web: http://www.leibnizcenter.org/users/rinke > > Leibniz Center for Law, Faculty of Law > University of Amsterdam, PO Box 1030 > 1000 BA Amsterdam, The Netherlands > ----------------------------------------------- > > >
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2008 06:31:16 UTC