Re: Proposed response to Golbeck regarding imports issue

On Mon, 2003-06-16 at 12:16, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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.

I accept that as your opinion, but...

> 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.

Fact? I see no justification that this is a fact.
Please provide some.

> 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
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Monday, 16 June 2003 13:42:05 UTC