Replies: 5 comments 3 replies
-
@jimmccusker what exactly do you mean by "when the OWL namespace is declared instead of the RDF namespace"? Currently, the document you linked has both |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Also worth noting, the linked document is currently parsed without error by the RDF/XML parser with the current HEAD of the master branch. We don't have a distinct OWL format. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
It looks like this particular ontology transitioned over to rdf/xml. Here is the one that would have been loaded when I filed the bug: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ISA-tools/stato/dev/releases/1.2/stato.owl I've updated the issue to use the older version. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
The original of that ontology is ill-formed, several Literals contain unescaped double-quotes. There's a commented-out fix in |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Standard RDFLib still cannot successfully parse owl/xml. Will this function be added? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
The detection should be when the OWL namespace is declared instead of the RDF namespace. In fact, the namespace should be what triggers RDF as well, since RDF can be embedded in other non RDF/XML documents as well.
On a practical note, it can be difficult to tell if someone has published RDF/XML vs OWL/XML from just the file extension. This should successfully parse, after this is implemented:
Currently, we get:
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions