- From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 22:42:57 +0200
- To: Jerome Euzenat <Jerome.Euzenat@inrialpes.fr>, public-webont-comments@w3.org
- cc: dlm@KSL.Stanford.EDU
Jerome Euzenat wrote: > I separate that one because I am sure it is controversial and subject > to interpretation: > > 3.6, imports: "a URI specifying from where the ontology is to be imported > from" > > I still understand that a URI is supposed to identify and not to locate so > it does not denote a location but a thing (e.g., isbn:..., doi:..., etc.). > So, in my opinion this should be an URL. You bet it is controversial. This very issue has been one of the topics on the debate that has been very active in the WG in the past few weeks, see e.g. the thread at [1]. One of the positions taken in that debate is exactly yours: the URI of an ontology is an identifier, not (necessarily) a locator, but others have taken other positions. Your arguments on this would certainly be appreciated. Frank. ---- [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Sep/0188.html
Received on Monday, 23 September 2002 16:42:31 UTC