W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > November 2007

owl:imports vs xinclude

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 14:29:10 +0000
Message-ID: <47459236.2060708@hpl.hp.com>
To: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

Looking at last week's minutes, I see that I missed the final discussion 
concerning xinclude.

Please can someone give a partisan and biased account of:

a) what's wrong with owl:imports


b) why xinclude fixes it

(My gut feel is that this seems like unnecessary change, but since I 
don't understand the motivations, I thought I should ask before a 
knee-jerk disagreement!)

Background: HP's Jena software implements owl:imports, and this has been 
widely used and largely unproblematic, so we are surprised to hear that 
there is something sufficiently wrong to require a redesign, rather than 
a minor rewording. (However, the HP implementation has additional 
features over-and-above the recommended behaviour, and so our experience 
may not be representative or relevant).


Received on Thursday, 22 November 2007 14:29:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:00 UTC