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

Re: ISSUE 5.6 - daml:imports as magic syntax

From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:25:44 -0400
Message-ID: <3D7FA6C8.8FBC1FF0@cse.lehigh.edu>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
CC: www-webont-wg@w3.org

I feel like we are about to get in a "Yes it is" / "No it isn't"
argument.
Instead of doing that, let me ask some questions to help me understand
your position. What do you mean by a "semantic account of HTTP GET?"
Just some basic properties of the function or a complete definition of
the function? If the later, how formal does this definition need to be?
Why isn't it sufficient that at any given point in time, the GET
function is deterministic and returns a sequence of characters? Do you
think we need to account for the fact that the GET function changes over
time (since web pages change, move, etc.)? I don't. I think it is
sufficient to say that the semantics apply to a particular moment in
time.

Jeff

"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
> 
> From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
> Subject: Re: ISSUE 5.6 - daml:imports as magic syntax
> Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 17:48:44 -0400
> 
> > "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
> > > Subject: Re: ISSUE 5.6 - daml:imports as magic syntax
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > > > Something more is needed.  In particular, a relationship between the
> > > > > current graph and its name is needed.  Otherwise how can the condition
> > > > > be discharged in the conditional above?
> > > >
> > > > The relationship can be implmented by using the HTTP GET function to
> > > > fetch the contents at the URL and then parsing it based on OWL
> > > > semantics. I don't see what the problem is.
> > >
> > > Well you now have to incorporate the meaning of the HTTP GET function in
> > > the semantics itself.  How are you planning on doing this?  This is the
> > > sort of machinery that is hard to specify and easy to pervert.
> >
> > Why would you have to incorporate that meaning into the semantics
> > itself? It is a simple, computable function. The results of the function
> > aren't important to the basic theory, the only matter when determining
> > the entailments of a particular document.
> 
> Yes, I agree, and I would be happy to have imports be magic syntax, and
> treat it the way you seem to want to.
> 
> However, a semantic account of the above imports needs a semantic account
> of HTTP GET.
> 
> peter
Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2002 16:25:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:52 GMT