- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:19:12 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Owl Dev <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
Pat Hayes wrote: > > I agree. But I don't follow why you need this: > Consider: ex1.owl <> owl:imports <ex2.owl>. <> owl:imports <ex3.owl>. ex2.owl <eg:a> <eg:p> <eg:b> . ex3.owl <eg:a> <eg:q> <eg:b> . I believe a legal interpretation can have I(ex2.owl) = I(ex3.owl), (in fact these seem wholly unconstrained) and so ex1.owl does not necessarily have two owl:imports. Using the named graphs extension to RDF semantics would fix this, for example, by requiring I(ex2.owl), I(ex3.owl) to be the two different singleton sets of triples listed. That extension, is, of course, designed to be compatible with OWL Full. Jeremy -- Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Friday, 15 June 2007 09:19:38 UTC