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

ACTION-38

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:
	http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Imports#Bijan. 
27s_Scenario:_Generating_Variants

Which is indicated with this diff:
	http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php? 
title=Imports&diff=2537&oldid=2325

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:
	http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude/#fallback.org/

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Monday, 7 January 2008 20:38:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:29 GMT