Re: importing RDF and OWL


>> Part of my motivation for this is that the context list should be 
>> openly extensible. For example, I suspect the OWL-R fragment currently 
>> being defined in the OWLWG may be very important for RIF. We might 
>> even want to predefine an IRI to refer to it (so long as we can do so 
>> without entangling the specs). That seems easier if there isn't a 
>> predefined promotion hierarchy to fit into.
> The list of profiles is meant to be extensible, and I will update the 
> text to reflect that (probably just before the telephone conference 
> tomorrow :-)).
> But we still need to deal with the situation where different profiles 
> are specified, if only in the above-mentioned scenario of rule set imports.

I updated the text to say explicitly that the list of profiles is not 
closed [1].  I also added a clause to deal with the situation that there 
is not a single highest profile (basically, the ruleset should be rejected).
I hope this addresses your concern.

Best, Jos

PS I think your concern about multiple profiles should be discussed at 
the face-to-face.


Jos de Bruijn,
One man that has a mind and knows it can
always beat ten men who haven't and don't.
   -- George Bernard Shaw

Received on Friday, 23 May 2008 17:03:10 UTC