- From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:37:04 -0400
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, public-owl-dev@w3.org, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Alistair Miles <a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk>
Bijan, > In practice, owl:imports (and owl:Ontology) are just magic syntax. > Thinking of them as a property and a class and wondering if they get > the modeling "right" is hugely pointless and counterproductive. > owl:imports is definitely not flexible enough for what people want to > do in building their ontologies (we need something like an XML Catalog > or schemaLocation or something better as well, because people want to > work with private variants but not have their URIs all screwed up). Fair enough, let's put if owl:imports gets right or not aside. It is a side point. But what I really want to know is what kind of meaning, in terms of RDF graphs, a simple statement like _:x a http://example.com/o1#A . convey? If it only conveys what it says (as you said most RDF reasoners do). Then how can I instruct the reasoner to include additional statement stored elsewhere? Should I use owl:imports? Then would a reasoner reject my statement since there is no owl:Ontology header? Or should I use rdfs:isDefinedBy, rdfs:seeAlso? If so, where is it specified? When writing ontologies, it, of course, doesn't matter. I can just use owl:imports in case the reasoner only support explicit import. But when I am writing plain RDF statements, such as a personal profile, don't I have to know what it means to a reasoner before I write something? On the other hand, if I am to write a RDF/OWL based agents, don't I have to know the exact model to work satisfactorily. I am sorry this thread side-stepped into the design of owl:imports and owl:Ontology. But the trigger is Alan's proposal on a conditional rdfs:imports. Hence, I was saying that we should clarify the "default" import model first before adding new tag? But it still seems a haze to me what should be is the standard practice. Cheers, Xiaoshu
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:40:37 UTC