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

Re: Imports issue

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:40:38 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20030219.194038.107629654.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>
Subject: IImports issue
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:26:57 +0100

> I'm feeling increasingly uncomfortable about our "imports" resolution 
> (see the discussion threads cited in the agenda).
> 
> Unless we get in the very near future clear evidence this is an 
> implementable language feature, I will have to reopen this issue and 
> propose to give imports the same informnal status as the versioning stuff.

Huh?  

To implement imports, it suffices to modify an RDF/XML processor as
follows:

   Whenever an imports triple is found, first check to the if the object of
   the triple has been imported already.   If not, get the document that is
   pointed to by the object of the triple and run it through the RDF/XML
   processor.  Then merge the result with the current graph.  Only a very
   small amount of care is required to prevent loops.

What could be easier?

What is currently being argued about is how imports interacts with OWL Lite
and OWL DL, i.e., what documents containing imports count as an OWL Lite or
OWL DL document.

> Note that responses of the type "this is a useful/necessary feature" are 
> not helpful at this point. 

> If we cannot show that imports  can be 
> implemented, we will not be able to go to Proposed Rec with the OWL spec 
> as it stands. 

This is crazy!  Who has claimed that imports is not implementable!

> We would all hate toi see that happen.
> 
> Guus

peter
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2003 19:40:53 GMT

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