Paul, Base URI is really a URI of a file or of a data graph. Resources in the file (graph) do not have to have the same namespace as the file (base URI).
You should be able to have 17 different base URIs for each of your files without impacting the URIs of the classes. Regards, Irene -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of PaulZH Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 4:06 PM To: TopBraid Composer Users Subject: [tbc-users] Re: Base URI vs Default Namespace again Holger, That's what I guessed. But using xml:base with a full URI doesn't work for 17 different files, hence 17 different xml:bases, with classes belonging to the same namespace. Using an empty xml:base seems to give what I'm after, but then the SWIFTOWLIM inferencer doesn't work due to the empty URI. For this use case it would be better to resolve against the default namespace. Another option is to use full URI's to start with of course, which wasn't needed for Protégé. But tools,as Scott mentioned, seems to handle this differently. Paul On May 28, 8:30 pm, Holger Knublauch <[email protected]> wrote: > If the files are in your TBC workspace but do not contain an xml:base > declaration and also no owl:Ontology, then the system will need to > guess about the base URI, and by default insert the file:/ location. > Ideally, insert an xml:base before importing. > > Holger > > On May 28, 2009, at 8:05 AM, Scott Henninger wrote: > > > > > Paul; There are some differences in how editors parse RDF/XML files. > > Given what you have posted, I cannot see how one gets from the snippet > > you posted to URIs referenced by <file:/...>. If you could send a > > couple of examples, perhaps offline, that might be the best way to > > address the issue. > > > -- Scott > > > On May 28, 8:37 am, PaulZH <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I have following use case. > > >> I did receive 17 xml/rdf files, each file collecting all the > >> instances > >> from 1 of the 17 classes, which all belong to the same namespace. > >> These 17 files need to be merged. > >> They all have following structure: > > >> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdfs="...." ... > >> xmlns="http://www.acme.org/org/terms/";> > > >> <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.acme.org/org/terms/ClassA/ > >> 2009-06-01/InstanceA"> > >> <rdf:type rdf:resource="ClassA"/> > >> <rdfs:label>TTTT</rdfs:label> > >> <skos:prefLabel>TTTT</skos:prefLabel> > >> </rdf:Description> > > >> Loading these files in Protégé gives me 5 minutes work: import, infer > >> and done. > > >> In TBCME > >> I get as Class Identifier > >> <file:/Applications/TopBraidComposerME/workspace/OWMS/lijstjes/ > >> ClassA> > >> and as instance > >> <file:/Applications/TopBraidComposerME/workspace/OWMS/lijstjes/ > >> http//www.acme.org/org/terms/ClassA/2009-06-01/InstanceA> > > >> Just concatenating both with the implicit base uri, I suppose. > >> The first one can be understood, since relative to what: the default > >> namespace or the base uri. > >> But the second is really weird. > > >> Changing > >> <rdf:type rdf:resource="ClassA"/> to the full identifier > >> <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.acme.org/org/terms/ClassA"/> > >> brings the Class in TBCME in the correct namespace > >> but the instances are still completely wrong. > > >> Adding in addition > >> xml:base="" to the imported file gives the expected result. > >> I do receive however warnings on the empty URI and SWIFTOWLIM refuses > >> to run due to this. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Composer Users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-composer-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
