W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > April 2002

Re: rdf inclusion

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 09:40:46 -0700
Message-Id: <p05101550b8ee7de7855f@[65.217.30.94]>
To: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
>
>>  If it is applied to a document as in b) do all DAML+OIL resources
>>  referenced within that document also use the imported ontology?  Or
>>  just to statements about the document itself?
>
>In terms of merging RDF graphs, daml:imports means you can't add that
>triples from some graph unless you also add all the triples from the
>graphs of the resources that are imported.

But wait a minute.  What does it even mean for your ontology to say 
what my reasoning engine can or cannot do? Of course I CAN add 
triples from one graph without adding triples from another. All that 
any ontology can do is to express some propositional content. What 
another engine does with that content can be reasonably expected to 
conform to the semantics of the language, but that's about all. If 
the engine decides to ignore some of what you say, that's it's 
business, not yours. Ignoring part of any RDF graph is perfectly 
valid considered as an inference, after all: an RDF graph entails all 
its subgraphs.

I think this entire discussion is in a dream world. First, there are 
no clear notions of definition to appeal to. Second, no ontology can 
restrain the actions of a remote inference engine. Third, why would 
one want things to be different?

Pat
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Monday, 29 April 2002 12:42:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:42 GMT