W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > April to June 2007

Re: on owl:imports

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 11:15:56 -0500
Message-Id: <p06230900c2986ae5c6ec@[10.100.0.28]>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Owl Dev <public-owl-dev@w3.org>

>Pat Hayes wrote:
>>
>>I agree. But I don't follow why you need this:
>>
>
>
>Consider:
>
>ex1.owl
><> owl:imports <ex2.owl>.
><> owl:imports <ex3.owl>.
>
>ex2.owl
><eg:a> <eg:p> <eg:b> .
>
>ex3.owl
><eg:a> <eg:q> <eg:b> .
>
>I believe a legal interpretation can have I(ex2.owl) = I(ex3.owl), 
>(in fact these seem wholly unconstrained) and so ex1.owl does not 
>necessarily have two owl:imports.

Ah. Yes, I see your point. We simply didn't consider this use of URIs 
in RDF, and as I recall, OWL semantics kind of punted on it also. The 
Common Logic semantics does this properly, using the notion of a 
'network name' which has a fixed denotation in all interpretations. 
It was inspired by the named graphs extension.

>Using the named graphs extension to RDF semantics would fix this, 
>for example, by requiring I(ex2.owl), I(ex3.owl) to be the two 
>different singleton sets of triples listed. That extension, is, of 
>course, designed to be compatible with OWL Full.

Yup. It works in full predicate logic, in fact.

Pat

>
>Jeremy
>
>
>--
>Hewlett-Packard Limited
>registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
>Registered No: 690597 England


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC		(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502			(850)291 0667    cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Friday, 15 June 2007 16:19:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:54 GMT