W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > January 2008


From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 20:40:37 +0000
Message-Id: <15AC7A16-FF62-4EF4-83A4-DACD2AE1E69C@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

Complete by this section:

Which is indicated with this diff:

It's a bit chatty, but I thought it better to put it on the page  
rather than letting it get lost in email.

It's more reactiony than polemical. The take away I see is that I  
guess I can live, for that scenario, with having to harmonize names  
and imports. It seems *pointless*, but it's one more pointless bit of  
pain in OWL and probably not enough to put me over the edge :)

Personally, I think, on the Web, that the ID of the ontology (in the  
ontology construct) is pretty meaningless and pointless.

I really hate unspecified, out of band solutions. I don't want to  
learn and relearn how to configure my environment, esp. since I tend  
to use multiple tools (including the Pellet command line, online  
tools, etc.).

xinclude is looking pretty good to me :) Fallbacking is nice:

Received on Monday, 7 January 2008 20:38:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:02 UTC