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

Re: LANG: need to CLOSE Issue 5.6 Imports as magic syntax

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 11:06:06 -0500
Message-ID: <006c01c288d3$13d30a30$7c674544@ne.mediaone.net>
To: "Frank van Harmelen" <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

Frank van Harmelen wrote:

>
> QUESTION: without an explicit imports construct,
>           how can I ever use the contents of someURI2,
>           which contains the range definition of someURI1#Prop1 ?
>
> I find this question so obvious that I fear it will have been answered
> before by the proponents of the "no import in OWL-v1", and I have
> probably just missed the answer to this. If so, please can someone point
me
> to it?
>
> This answer is so important to me because I could not live with OWL if the
> above scenario were not possible. Note: there is nothing fuzzy here
> concerning
> trust, commitment, asserting-or-not, etc. I just want to understand how I
can
> specify to my reaoner from which premises it should draw its conclusions.
>

Good argument. This one seems to be compelling that we have an explicit
imports.

Aside from that, daml:imports *is* part of DAML+OIL and we really should
make some attempt to stick to keeping such features of DAML+OIL in OWL
unless there is some consensus *against*. Given that this is part of
DAML+OIL, I find the arguments that owl:imports is somehow outside the scope
of WebOnt WG less than compelling.

Jonathan
Received on Sunday, 10 November 2002 11:25:54 GMT

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