- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 13:16:24 -0400 (EDT)
- To: connolly@w3.org
- Cc: schreiber@cs.vu.nl, heflin@cse.lehigh.edu, hendler@cs.umd.edu, michael.smith@eds.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> Subject: Re: Proposed response to Golbeck regarding imports issue Date: 16 Jun 2003 12:05:35 -0500 > > On Mon, 2003-06-16 at 10:08, Guus Schreiber wrote: > [...] > > > "Note that the importing a document is different than creating a > > > namespace reference. owl:imports do not set up a shorthand notation for > > > names as does a namespace reference. On the other hand, the namespace > > > reference does not imply that all (or even any) ontological terms from > > > that namespace are being imported. > > Oops! I must have missed that earlier. > > Yes, namespace declarations do imply that ontological terms > are being imported! At least in the tools that I build, they > do. I don't mind if the WG doesn't endorse that position, but > I do mind if the WG specifies that it's not so. > > Please strike that text. I strongly disagree. It is definitely the case in OWL that ``the namespace reference does not imply that all (or even any) ontological terms from that namespace are being imported.'' You may write whatever tools you want, but this does not change the fact that OWL namespace references do not imply any importing. In my opinion the removal of that text will leave a mistaken impression. > > > Therefore, it is common to have a > > > corresponding namespace declaration for any ontology that is > > > imported." > > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ peter
Received on Monday, 16 June 2003 13:16:49 UTC