W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > February 2003

Re: owl:imports experience: took it out

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 09:59:03 +0100
To: jonathan@openhealth.org
Cc: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF1ADE0F8F.C5675040-ONC1256CCD.002EC0B9-C1256CCD.00316612@agfa.be>


> > The bug I found (via my implementation) with owl:imports
> > is that it should actually be
> >
> >   <some-uri#ontologyName> owl:imports _:importedOntology .
> >   <other-uri-of-a-doc> log:semantics _:importedOntology .
> >
> > There is a difference between a document and the thing
> > written in a document (in this case an ontology).
> >
>
> ??? I am lost on this one. I understand the distinction you are making
but
> what is the *bug* from a functional point of view.
>
> :foo owl:imports http://example.org/ontology.owl
>
> loads the triples obtained by parsing what is returned by dereferencing
> http://example.org/ontology.owl -- what is the *actual* problem with
this?

the actual problem I had was that it is
either

  :foo owl:imports <http://example.org/ontology>.
  <http://example.org/ontology> rdf:type doc:Work.

or

  :foo owl:imports _:ontology.
  _:ontology rdf:type owl:Ontology.

and I prefer the latter
with the dereferencing *explicit* via
  <http://example.org/ontology> log:semantics _:ontology.

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 14 February 2003 03:59:47 GMT

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