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

RE: Proposed response to Golbeck regarding imports issue

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 10:29:54 +0200
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDCELOCBAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

> > continued for a long time after.  The decision recorded in our
> > records is in:
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Nov/0004.html
> > and you will see it says nothing about whether a namespace reference
> > (or other naming) does or does not import.
>
> My reading of this message is quite different.  The document exactly
> defines which other documents are to be considered to be
> imported, and this
> set of documents is determined solely from imports directives.
>
..
> peter
>
>

I would balance this by, while OWL software must be able to strictly follow
the recommendation, it seems quite plausible to me for OWL software to have
additional features that monotonically extend the recommendation. However,
these will not interoperate. So I would not be displeased with a user option
to import all the definitions of all terms I used (if the sw devleoper can
come to an acceptable definition of 'definition'), nor would I be displeased
to have a user option to import all the namespaces declared.
In certain contexts, I think OWL would be useful with some ontologies
preimported.
Such user options are not what we are currently trying to work on.

Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2003 04:30:04 GMT

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