Re: a simple question

PatH:
[sorry to remove some context :)]

> Fine: then do whatever you wish in your domain of application. But when
> PUBLISHING your rules, I think it is not unreasonable to have a global
> requirement (or at any rate a code of good practice) that whatever you
> publish, you are responsible for saying what it means clearly enough for
> others to use it. If you publish rules that only work in an unstated
> context and which fail elsewhere, without any indication that this is
> true, then you are acting at best irresponsibly; and I would like the
> overall SW specs to say that you are acting in way that fails to conform
> and is deprecated.

For the fun, well, during test case work, I've often done test
runs with assumptions (rule sets, rdf triples, owl ontologies)
I used elsewhere (for totally different applications) and I always
found a "no proof found" for the test case's conclusion parts.
I observe that it is the unification of absoluteized URI's that
is not succeeding in such cases.

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/