- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:20:39 -0500
- To: bparsia@isr.umd.edu
- Cc: public-sw-meaning@w3.org
(well, I guess we're back on the list. I'll have to be more explicit in requesting off-list discussion, I guess.) On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 13:04, Bijan Parsia wrote: > [...] > >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. I have. They don't specify the semantics of owl:imports. > If that doesn't help I suggest you send a comment to the OWL working > group. I did. Lots of times. The WG decided the issue over my objection. http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.6-daml:imports-as-magic-syntax > >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). I'll think that over... > Cheers, > Bijan Parsia. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2003 15:22:12 UTC