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

Re: owl:imports experience: took it out

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 07:34:26 -0500
Message-ID: <001801c2d425$6b94d670$7c01a8c0@ne.mediaone.net>
To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

Jos De_Roo wrote:
...
>
> 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.
>

When I read the OWL Semantics concerning rdf:type, I see nothing that has to
do with any of

doc:Work
log:semantics

nor is there any requirement that the URI be of rdf:type owl:Ontology.

I understand the above are N3 constructs, but I don't think this issue has
anything to do with owl:imports as specified by the OWL Semantics. The fact
that you removed your implementation of owl:imports was given as evidence
that there is some problem with owl:imports. I don't see the problem with
owl:imports itself -- i.e. when you are *implementing it* just dereference
the URI and load the triples you get into the KB.

Jonathan
Received on Friday, 14 February 2003 07:57:27 GMT

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