>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/phayesReceived on Friday, 15 June 2007 16:19:35 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:14 GMT