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

Re: importing and entialment

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 07:25:22 -0400
Message-ID: <00df01c27a86$e2c7dab0$7c674544@ne.mediaone.net>
To: "Jeff Heflin" <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

Jeff Heflin wrote:
>
> ... However, I think that it
> is still desirable to say that if the import "fails," any inferences are
> inherently incomplete. Whether it was because the author mistyped the
> URL or because the document being referenced was moved by its owner,
> there is something that the author of the importing document wants
> referenced, but the deductive system is unable to take it into
> consideration. I believe saying the inferences are incomplete is much
> more graceful than having a defined error condition in such cases
> (although specific systems are free to raise warnings or errors in such
> cases). However, I believe an error condition is still better than just
> saying "well let's assume the imports statement refers to an empty
> document."
>

The reason monotonicity is emphasized for Web applications is that we need
to make such assumptions.

Perhaps when an import is successful, we ought add a triple to the KB that
says

<http://example.org/ex.owl> owl:importStatus true .

or something to that effect?

I _wouldn't_ flag failures, as they might succeed at a later time (and so
the absense of success is a better flag than explicit failure).

Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2002 07:44:25 GMT

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