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

Re: ISSUE 5.6 - daml:imports as magic syntax

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 23:17:37 -0400
Message-ID: <021d01c25a0a$f2bf47b0$af363418@ne.mediaone.net>
To: "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

Smith, Michael K wrote:
> Here is what I think is a simple suggestion for an essentially
> syntactic treatment of owl:imports using XML:Base.
> I wrote this note and then finally followed Jonathan's pointer to
> XInclude, which seems like a decent option, except for the requirement
> that a loop be a fatal error.  In distributed ontologies I would
> expect loops to show up.  ???

Really? I'd think that inclusion loops would be very weird, but who knows.

However, you point out a good point in that a real XInclude would bring in
an embedded <rdf:RDF> element which wouldn't be legal RDF.

Instead, we could define an <owl:import> as merging the referenced KB into
the current KB, and that on any given OWL "parse" of an RDF graph, that the
merge would only occur on the first occurance of an owl:imports with a given
rdf:resource (i.e. href).

Ideally this would be part of RDF itself as it really is sort of a plumbing
thingie rather than an ontology specific thingie.

Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2002 23:34:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:47 UTC