LC Responses/JW1

From OWL
Revision as of 15:45, 19 February 2009 by PeterPatel-Schneider (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

(My apologies for continuing to dribble these in. If you want me to stop, or to send my LC comments elsewhere, please let me know.)

The mapping to RDF draft says:

An RDF syntax ontology document is any sequence of octets accessible from some given IRI that can be parsed into an RDF graph, and that then be transformed into an OWL 2 ontology by the canonical parsing process instantiated as specified in this section.

You can't parse octets to RDF unless you know the media type and the character encoding. Therefore you must say that an ontology document is a triple {media type, character encoding, octet sequence}, or something else that has enough information to enable parsing. This tuple would correspond to what HTTP calls an "entity" and what webarch calls a "representation".

The section is called "Mapping from RDF graphs" so I don't even know why a document is required. Why not just specify a mapping from RDF graphs? You are already blurring the distinction between "ontology" and "ontology document" (I take the latter as a "representation" of the ontology according to webarch, since you're using the same URI to "identify" both), so this should be easy.

Best Jonathan





PeterPatel-Schneider 20:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


[Draft Response for LC Comment 55:]

Dear Jonathan,

Thank you for your message

 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Feb/0001.html

on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.

You are completely correct that there is no need for the RDF Mapping to be concerned about the exact form of an input document. The only thing that matters is that an input document can be parsed into an RDF graph. There has to be some concern with documents to handle imports, however.

The document has therefore been changed to read

   An RDF Syntax ontology document is any document accessible from some
   given IRI that can be parsed into an RDF graph, ...

The diffs can be found at ..................................

The WG considers this to be an editorial change.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.

Regards, Peter F. Patel-Schneider on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group


PeterPatel-Schneider 15:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


[Response for LC Comment 55:]

Dear Jonathan,

Thank you for your message

 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Feb/0001.html

on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.

You are completely correct that there is no need for the RDF Mapping to be concerned about the exact form of an input document. The only thing that matters is that an input document can be parsed into an RDF graph. There has to be some concern with documents to handle imports, however.

The document has therefore been changed to read

   An RDF Syntax ontology document is any document accessible from some
   given IRI that can be parsed into an RDF graph, ...

The diffs can be found at

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Mapping_to_RDF_Graphs&diff=18155&oldid=17663

The WG considers this to be an editorial change.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.

Regards, Peter F. Patel-Schneider on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group