On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Henry Story wrote:
In that case both documents are in fact semantically identical.
So what one wants is either
- a way to specify the *vocabulary* the client understands, and have the
sender send back content only in that vocabulary, or at least add some
mappings from its vocab to the one understood by the client.
This has been discussed in a previous thread [1] that you might be
interested in which (In my estimation) covers what you are asking for with this
point:
..instance graph sent to client..
|
rdfs:isDefinedBy
|
V
McDonaldOntology (with owl:sameAs, etc.. mappings to AtomOWL)
|
owl:imports
|
V
AtomOWL ontology
That is, the appropriate 'trail' can be left by the sender/server for the
client to determine (by a form of regulated web closure) the mapping via
owl:sameAs. The mechanisms to express this trail are there (graph linking
vocabulary terms), but what is lacking is a social contract for
traversing distributed RDF graphs and their defining ontologies.
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-semweb-lifesci/2006Jul/0082.html
[2] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HCLS/WebClosureSocialConvention
Chimezie Ogbuji
Lead Systems Analyst
Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Cleveland Clinic Foundation
9500 Euclid Avenue/ W26
Cleveland, Ohio 44195
Office: (216)444-8593
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
