- From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
- Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 17:00:12 -0400
- To: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- CC: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
See my earlier reply to Peter [1] about why I don't like a purely syntactic approach. I also had one additional thought since sending that message. A pure syntactic inclusion could result in multiple ontologies in a single document with no way to distinguish between what contents are in each (since the owl:Ontology tags don't actually wrap the class and property descriptions, but instead only wrap the metadata about the ontology). Furthermore, the standard use is something like: <owl:Ontology rdf:about=""> ... </owl:Ontology> This use of relative URLs would change the meaning of the syntax when it is placed in a different document. Jeff [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Sep/0112.html Jonathan Borden wrote: > > Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > > > A treatment of imports can be done completely syntactically, by replacing > > imports foo, where foo is a URI (or whatever) by the contents of the > > document pointed at by foo. This is the way I would handle it in the > > abstract syntax and direct semantics. > > hmmm... if we consider that daml:imports is syntactic sugar for XInclude > http://www.w3.org/TR/xinclude/ i.e. > > <xi:include > xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" > href="foo.daml" > /> > > just using XInclude as it is already specified would allow us to prune this > whole discussion and the issues it raises of special syntax, semantics etc. > > Jonathan
Received on Tuesday, 10 September 2002 17:00:16 UTC