Re: Proposed response to Golbeck regarding imports issue

>
> From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Proposed response to Golbeck regarding imports issue
> Date: 16 Jun 2003 12:05:35 -0500
...
> >
> > 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 also most strongly disagree.

Are you suggesting that the _presence_ of an XML Namespace declaration in an
RDF/XML document indicates that the 'namespace' ought be imported. If, so
this would suggest that an XML Namespace is to be _identified_ with an OWL
Ontology -- if that is what we are saying, then let's say that clearly.

Since the XML namespace declarations in the RDF/XML source don't end up in
an N-Triples representation of the RDF graph, I think we *should* say
affirmitively that XML namespace declarations do not imply OWL importation
of the namespace document (if any exists) -- otherwise we'd certainly not
need owl:imports eh?

>
> 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.

I'd go further to say that Dan's tools are behaving in an extra-OWL fashion.

>
> > > > Therefore, it is common to have a
> > >  > corresponding namespace declaration for any ontology that is
> > >  > imported."
> >
> > --

It certainly is convenient -- and we could entertain a discussion about
whether namespace declarations ought imply importation, but that isn't the
current situation -- unless I'm seriously mistaken.

Jonathan