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: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 00:25:51 +0100
To: jonathan@openhealth.org
Cc: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF76BBF933.43343F51-ONC1256CCD.007E018C-C1256CCD.0080C1BE@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.
> >
> I also understand what your issues are with respect to N3/CWM.
> is a strong word when we are speaking of test cases, however, and I would
> like you to define what you mean by "similar ambiguous stuff" -- is this
> ambiguous with respect to OWL?

No, not w.r.t. OWL.
It is that we now say

[ is log:conjunction of
   ( [ is log:semantics of <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/graph.axiom> ]
     [ is log:semantics of <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl> ]
     [ is log:semantics of <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema> ] ) ]
     [ is log:semantics of <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/graph.lemma> ] .

instead of

( <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/graph.axiom>
  <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema> ) log:implies
  <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/graph.lemma> .

and the ambiguity is between the document
and what's written in the document.

> Where exactly is the ambiguity *with respect
> to OWL alone*?

The range of owl:imports is an owl:Ontology
and when we write

  :foo owl:imports <http://example.org/ontology>.

it is a web document!

> I have heard folks make statements to the effect that they are uneasy
> owl:imports, but I just don't see the (actual as opposed to theoretical)
> issue. I need this spelled out very concretely so that I may better
> understand it.

This is a very practical issue for running code!
How else can we differentiate between the
web document and the stuff in the document???
(I must admit that I had a hard time to change
my mind as I always thought that that could
be builtin intention of the property so that
things could be done implicitly, but I now
think that explicitness is better)

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 14 February 2003 18:26:34 UTC

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