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

Re: Proposed response to Golbeck regarding imports issue

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 16 Jun 2003 13:10:43 -0500
To: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1055787042.27168.190.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Mon, 2003-06-16 at 13:00, Jonathan Borden wrote:
> >
> > 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.

More precisely: that the use of the term http://...foo#bar
implies assent to the contents of http://...foo.

Namespace declarations are an incidental syntactic detail.

>  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.

That's pretty much what I'm saying. I accept that the WG doesn't
endorse this view.

I don't accept that the WG has decided to specify that it doesn't work.


> 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?

Indeed, I don't believe we need owl:imports. I objected to the WG
decision, you may recall.

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.6-daml:imports-as-magic-syntax


> 
> >
> > 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.

Yes, they're doing more than the spec requires.
They're not doing anything that the spec should prohibit.


> >
> > > > > 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

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 16 June 2003 14:10:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:01 GMT