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

Re: LANG: syntactic version for imports (and other things)

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 17:18:22 +0200
To: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF6670A405.7F25909A-ONC1256C36.0053B8D8@agfa.be>

opps... that reminded me about that
entailment you and DanC discussed
indeed, we support that
  http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/ontAP
  owl-entails
  http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/ontAC

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/




Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
Sent by: www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
2002-09-16 04:06 PM

 
        To:     "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
        cc:     www-webont-wg@w3.org
        Subject:        Re: LANG: syntactic version for imports (and other things)



I'm not wild about this idea. Multiple imports are going to be common
and simply having a space delimited list is an ugly solution. Especially
since guidelines for designing XML DTDs and Schemas usually suggest that
you only use attributes for things that have single values. If we are
going to have non-RDF syntactic extensions (which is what this is), we
may as well do good design and have a separate XML element for each
ontology that is imported.

Also, I expected to see some account of the meaning of this construct.
You didn't like my entailment-based version, what would you suggest
instead?

Jeff

"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
>
> My suggestion would be that imports is an XML attribute on the enclosing
> tag of an ontology.
>
> So an OWL ontology would look something like:
>
> <rdf:RDF owl:imports="foo:bar">
>     ...
> </rdf:RDF>
>
> where the document pointed at by foo:bar should contain an OWL ontology.
> (If it does not, then a null ontology is used.)
>
> It would be nice to allow multiple imports, but this is not possible in
> XML, so the value would have to be a list of URLs.
>
> Other things, like backward compatibility could be handled in the same 
way.
>
> peter
Received on Monday, 16 September 2002 11:19:01 GMT

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