I think this gets to a major source of confusion that I confess I still have
after working with OWL for over four years and writing acres of code that uses
it.
The named graphs I'm dealing with contain an Individual (only one) of one of
the OWL classes defined in my ontologies. So, I have an OWL class "Something"
in one of my ontologies, and create Individuals ("Something1", "Something2",
etc.) of that class in a Model, and those Individuals use classes and
properties defined in the ontologies.
Do these Individuals have to explicitly import the referenced ontologies? The
Models they live in all have attached document managers that know about the
ontologies. When you talk about "inventing a URI for the ontology" it makes me
think the Individuals, which are effectively business objects, have to have, in
the Model they live in, an Ontology object. Is this the case?
I've been putting in explicit import triples, and the ontology triple we've
been discussing. (When writing to a text file I also but in a Base URI.) I find
that if I don't put in explicit imports, things seem to work fine, but any
files I create by writing out the Individuals, get dire warnings when opened by
TopBraid Composer ("offering" to fix the file by adding explicit imports).
TopBraid also seems to insist that there be a Base URI. (I realize this isn't
a TopBraid list, but I naively assume TopBraid is written by people who know
more about OWL than I do, so it makes me nervous when this happens.) Should I
just not be nervous?
Dave Lebling
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Reynolds [mailto:[email protected]]
You may want to invent a URI for the ontology that is related to, but different
from, your other URIs. Designing the URI architecture is often a non-trivial
part of designing a linked data application.
