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

Re: LANG?/SEM?: using resources

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 11:18:40 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20020918.111840.26694830.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: hendler@cs.umd.edu
Cc: welty@us.ibm.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Subject: Re: LANG?/SEM?: using resources (was Re: LANG: owl:ontology)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 11:06:40 -0400

> >
> >
> >
> >As far as I can see the only viable route is to be able to use resources
> >without committing to anything related to that resource.  To commit to
> >something in some other ontology/document, use imports.
> >
> If I understand what he said correctly, Peter and I are in complete 
> agreement.  [...]
>   -JH

Well, perhaps, but what then was the point of your example?  Wouldn't it
have been simpler, and much less confusing, to have said 

> I'm even okay with this, however what I have a problem with is the following
> At URI1:
> ....
> <owl:class rdf:ID="foo" />
> (1,000,000 other assertions that appear in the graph)
> At URI2:
> <:bar owl:subclass URI1:foo />
> (put in any owl:ontology and rdf:RDF syntax you want - but no 
> owl:imports in URI2:)
> In this case I have a real problem with merging the graphs -- the 
> user is very unlikely to actually intend that those million facts 
> which he or she may not even have read should be included.
> This is the case I really care about.  For imports anything that can 
> identify and merge graphs makes me happy - for this case, I care that 
> we somehow scope what is included.  I would like [URI2 to not include any
> information from URI1].

I took the whole point of your example to be that *something* was
transferred from URI1 to URI2.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Received on Wednesday, 18 September 2002 11:18:55 UTC

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