- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 22:45:45 +0100
- To: jonathan@openhealth.org
- Cc: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
I understand you Jonathan, we did it like that
before, and we did similar ambiguous stuff
before in our entailment test case description.
I just wanted to say that we took that part of the
ambiguity out and I also understand that those
other constructs are not a standard yet.
-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
"Jonathan Borden"
<jonathan@openheal To: Jos De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER@AGFA
th.org> cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Sent by: Subject: Re: owl:imports experience: took it out
www-webont-wg-requ
est@w3.org
2003-02-14 01:34
PM
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 16:46:36 UTC