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

Re: MT for imports (was: Re: Imports Proposal)

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 09:46:53 -0500
Message-Id: <p05111b05b9f80edc0dba@[]>
To: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

Jeff, your email got me thinking about the intricacies which arise 
when thinking about imports in the context of a changing world. Here 
are few more example scenarios. In each case A, B, C etc are people, 
P, Q, R, etc are chunks of OWL in documents. 'changes' means altering 
the RDF at a given URL.

A publishes P
B publishes Q importing P
A changes P (to P')
C reads Q and imports P'

Now, has C got it right, or not? Or should C have imported P (how?) 
Or should B have tracked A's changes (how?)

A publishes P
B publishes Q
C publishes R importing Q
B changes Q to Q' importing P
D reads R

Has D got it right? This is really a special case of the first one, 
but since the change involves an imports, the effect is magnified, as 
it were. Obviously, the change could be arbitrarily far along an 
imports-reference chain.

A publishes P
B publishes Q importing P
A's server crashes
C reads Q , concludes that the imports P is empty, archives the result
A's server comes back online

Now has C got it right? Or should C have refused to archive an 
empty-due-to-404  imports statement?


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola               			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501            				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2002 09:46:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:49 UTC