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

RE: LANG: owl:import - Two Proposals

From: Peter Crowther <Peter.Crowther@networkinference.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 16:05:03 +0100
Message-ID: <3BE4D3F0FB726240966DEF40418472B5012C25@ni-lon-server1.ad.networkinference.com>
To: "Jeff Heflin" <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
Cc: "WebOnt" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

> From: Jeff Heflin [mailto:heflin@cse.lehigh.edu]
[...]
> Note that the undefined semantics is not for things of the form
> 
> A imports B
> 
> but instead of the form
> 
> foo subClassOf imports
> A foo B
> 
> We can come up with all kinds of examples along this theme 
> that lead to
> nightmares for implementation (imagine where I import something that
> then says that another property I have is actually a subclass of
> imports, then I have to import a whole new set of things, 
> which in turn
> might have other subclasses of imports).

This is bad enough assuming imports is pure RDF.  It gets even more fun if you bring this up to the OWL layer and allow negation.  What happens when you see an imports statement that imports a file that in some way negates the statement that caused it to be imported?  Should the file be imported?

I think there will be similar problems at any time that the imports statements are themselves in the UoD.  Therefore the imports statements should be outside the UoD.

Just my somewhat belated ($currency)0.02...

		- Peter
--
Peter Crowther, Chief Architect, Network Inference Limited
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2002 11:05:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:53 GMT