Question about @base

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Question about @base

Wartik, Steven P "Steve"

I have a question about how Protégé, or perhaps OWL API, decides what to use for @base in a Turtle representation. Suppose I have:

 

@prefix : <http://www.ida.org/entity-namespace/> .

@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .

@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .

@prefix xml: <http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace> .

@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .

@base <http://www.ida.org/entity-namespace> .

 

<http://www.ida.org/ontology-namespace> rdf:type owl:Ontology .

 

If I save this ontology, @base gets changed to:

 

@base <http://www.ida.org/ontology-namespace> .

 

For complex packaging reasons I won’t go into here, I want the base to be independent of the ontology’s URI. Protégé’s current behavior discourages this.

 

Is this caused by how Protégé uses OWL API when it saves an ontology, or is it an inherent and unalterable behavior of OWL API?

 

Thanks,

 

Steve Wartik

Institute for Defense Analyses

(703) 845-6646

[hidden email]

 

 


_______________________________________________
protege-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Question about @base

Matthew Horridge-2
Administrator
Hi Steve,

I believe that this is due to the OWL API.  I don’t know of a way to alter this as a caller of the OWL API.  You might want to ask this question over on the OWL API list.

Cheers,

Matthew


On 16 Nov 2017, at 08:31, Wartik, Steven P Steve <[hidden email]> wrote:

I have a question about how Protégé, or perhaps OWL API, decides what to use for @base in a Turtle representation. Suppose I have:
 
 
<http://www.ida.org/ontology-namespace> rdf:type owl:Ontology .
 
If I save this ontology, @base gets changed to:
 
 
For complex packaging reasons I won’t go into here, I want the base to be independent of the ontology’s URI. Protégé’s current behavior discourages this.
 
Is this caused by how Protégé uses OWL API when it saves an ontology, or is it an inherent and unalterable behavior of OWL API?
 
Thanks,
 
Steve Wartik
Institute for Defense Analyses
(703) 845-6646
 
 
_______________________________________________
protege-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-dev


_______________________________________________
protege-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-dev