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 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
Message-ID: <OFD0419A65.32E3A210-ONC1256CCD.0076DA63-C1256CCD.0077977D@agfa.be>

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                      
                    2003-02-14 01:34                                                                                   

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
do with any of


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.

Received on Friday, 14 February 2003 16:46:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:51 UTC