Re: Proposed issue: What does using an URI require of me andmysoftware?

[sorry, I had meant my reply to go to the list. Webmail is killing me]


---- Original message ----
>Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 12:44:24 -0500
>From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>  
>Subject: Re: Proposed issue: What does using an URI require of me and 
mysoftware?  
>To: bparsia@isr.umd.edu
>
>On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 12:26, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> On Tuesday, September 23, 2003, at 11:14  AM, Dan Connolly wrote:
>> >
>> >On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 10:00, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> >[...]
>> >> So, the question arises: What does commitment require of me? It 
seems 
>> >> to me that commitment to an ontology, minimally, as a necessary 
>> >> condition, requires my importing that ontology into my document.
>> >
>> >What do you mean by "importing" here?
>> 
>> I mean roughly the semantics of owl:imports.
>
>That helps me very little... not at all, in fact.
>I don't know what the semantics of owl:imports is,

At all? Read the OWL docs.

If that doesn't help I suggest you send a comment to the OWL working 
group.

>nor how to relate it to "the question" above.

Ok, I mean that I have to concatinate the graph dervied from parsing my 
document with the graph derived from the parsing of the "imported" 
ontology. Really, of course, some sense of the transitive closure of this.

This can be weakened, perhaps, by saying that when I use the term I 
should use it *as if* I had concatinated, etc. (After all, I might be hard wired 
to that ontology. Or I might have some clever, unknownst or unimagined 
by bijan way of only slurping the *really really* relevant bits of the ontology 
on demand).

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.

Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2003 14:04:36 UTC