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

Re: LANG: Summary of Issues 5.6 and 5.14

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 11:00:00 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20020919.110000.133807480.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: heflin@cse.lehigh.edu
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
Subject: LANG: Summary of Issues 5.6 and 5.14
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 10:51:18 -0400


> Alternatives:
> a) An entailment based approach proposed by me [1]. In short, the triple
> A owl:imports B means if graph(B) entails X then graph(A) entails X
> Pat Hayes suggested something similar in [2]: "If an ontology A contains 
> [import B] (in whatever notation turns out to be appropriate) and if 
> B + A entails C then A entails C"


I believe that the two approaches above are very different.

Jeff's approach allows imports relationships between arbitrary ontologies.
Pat's approach only allows the importing of another ontology into the
current situation.  Jeff's approach requires a notion of ontology in the
semantics, Pat's doesn't.  

I think that the difference is, in fact, even greater.  Jeff's approach
appears to require semantic support.  Pat's approach can be done in the

Received on Thursday, 19 September 2002 11:00:12 UTC

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