As basically all ontologies rely on a small set of "core" W3C ontologies (RDF,RDFS,OWL) ontologies, they should be one of the main first targets of ontologies to mirror to the registry.
One of the main conceptual roadblocks here always was that those ontologies have circular dependencies among each other, making them hard to fit into Plow, as the dependency resolution there doesn't allow for circular dependencies.
One way we could still support them is to do so without having the dependencies between them specified. Then one could still load the ontologies independently, and as long as all of them are loaded, one could still achieve "ontological completeness" in practice (= the semantics for all used IRIs are specified in ontologies).
The ontologies in question (more to be added):
- RDF:
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
- RDFS:
http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
- OWL:
http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
As basically all ontologies rely on a small set of "core" W3C ontologies (RDF,RDFS,OWL) ontologies, they should be one of the main first targets of ontologies to mirror to the registry.
One of the main conceptual roadblocks here always was that those ontologies have circular dependencies among each other, making them hard to fit into Plow, as the dependency resolution there doesn't allow for circular dependencies.
One way we could still support them is to do so without having the dependencies between them specified. Then one could still load the ontologies independently, and as long as all of them are loaded, one could still achieve "ontological completeness" in practice (= the semantics for all used IRIs are specified in ontologies).
The ontologies in question (more to be added):
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#