Re: importing RDF and OWL

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC#Profiles_of_Imports

Jos de Bruijn wrote:
> <snip/>
> 
>>>
>>> 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.
> 

-- 
                          debruijn@inf.unibz.it

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