W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > December 2002

Re: question about imports

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 18:54:37 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20021205.185437.45164590.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Subject: Re: question about imports
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 16:54:24 -0600

> >From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
> >Subject: question about imports
> >Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:27:45 -0600
> >
> >>
> >>  As I understand things, the current meaning of imports is that including
> >>
> >>  owl:imports B
> >>
> >>  in a document A has exactly the same meaning as copying the imports
> >>  closure of B into A.
> >>
> >>  So I have a question: consider two documents A and AC which are
> >>  identical except that A contains owl:imports B, and AC actually has
> >>  the imports closure of B copied into it at that point, but has no
> >>  reference whatever to B.
> >
> >This is different from the previous proposal in that it drops the imports
> >triple.
> >
> >>  These two documents have exactly the same
> >>  meaning, right?
> >
> >No, because the second is missing a triple.
> 
> They are syntactically distinct, but I believe they are true in 
> exactly the same interpretations (?). Keeping the imports triple with 
> the imported graph is like saying P and P instead of P, right?

Huh?  Are you thinking that this is a dark triple?  When did these come back?

> >>  And the first, but not the second, refers to another
> >>  document.
> >
> >And they have different meaning (as n-triples documents).
> >
> 
> In what does the difference reside?

I thought that every triple made an assertion.  If this is no longer true,
then I'm going to have a pile of changes to make.

> Pat

peter
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 18:54:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:55 GMT