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 02:11:58 +0100
To: jonathan@openhealth.org
Cc: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFCDCACCB0.B9154599-ONC1256CCE.00053DDB-C1256CCE.0006A256@agfa.be>


> > 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!
>
> Two thoughts:
>
> 1) Where does it say that the rande of owl:imports is an owl:Ontology? I
> understand what I think you mean in English, but *literally* the range of
> owl:imports is a web document that contains a set of RDF triples, *not* a
> single object of rdf:type owl:Ontology.

What do the ontologists want? ;-)
I thought it's more like a formula written on a web document
and the formula is not the document...

> 2) An ontology seems to me to be a subclass of a web document.

Seems to you ;-)

> In either case I don't think this is a showstopper problem with
> owl:imports -- and to be clear this discussion is in the context of
removing
> owl:imports from the current version of OWL.

I think we are incomplete.

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 14 February 2003 20:12:43 GMT

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