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

Re: Proposed response to Golbeck regarding imports issue

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:28:04 -0400
Message-ID: <051301c3343d$6c115330$b6f5d3ce@svhs.local>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

Dan Connolly wrote:

> >
> > 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.

Uh huh. I'd be very happy to discuss the implied relationship between that
identified by an URIreference to that identified by the URI itself.

Of course it brings up the following questions:

Does use of the term http://...foo#
imply assent to the contents of http://...foo

But let's get this off the topic of namespaces at all because we could ask
imply http://...foo/
and similarly ought
imply http://...foo#bar

> Namespace declarations are an incidental syntactic detail.
> >  If, so
> > this would suggest that an XML Namespace is to be _identified_ with an
> > 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.

I understand, and think that we might have made a case that this did work --
indeed I was disappointed that RDF CoreWG itself had not said so ... i.e.
the "meaning" of http://...foo#bar is determined by obtaining the document
at http://...foo, and looking for the rdf:ID="bar" inside ... (or something
*like* that for the most literal amongst us ... actually I'd really say it
differently - something that involves RDDL indirection -- but no matter).

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

I understand. At the time, my understanding was that you simply wanted to
*strike* owl:imports, rather than propose an alternate mechanism -- I'd have
supported the alternate -syntactic- device FWIW.
> Yes, they're doing more than the spec requires.
> They're not doing anything that the spec should prohibit.

Sure, let's be crystal clear about what the spec requires.

Received on Monday, 16 June 2003 15:28:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:53 UTC