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

---- Original message ----
>Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 10:35:14 -0500
>From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>  
>Subject: Re: Proposed issue: What does using an URI require of me and 
my software?  
>To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
>Cc: public-sw-meaning@w3.org
>
>On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 10:00, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>[...]
>> -----------------------
>> TECHNICAL POINT
>> 
>> This resolves to a simple technical point: Should an RDF 
>> processor/reasoner/agent import, to the best of its ability, pace 
>> network outages, cacheing, etc. "the" ontology of every URI it sees in 
>> a document?
>
>I don't think so.

That surpises me. Do you agree that use of a URI implies committment to 
the URI owner's ontology for that URI? If so, what does that committment 
require?

>But I'm not sure what an RDF processor/reasoner/agent is.

Well, take a simple case. Should rdf core impose upon a confroming RDF 
reasoner (i.e., an RDF reasoner which respects the RDF Semantics) the 
requirement that, given soundness and completeness, it entails all the 
consequences of the merge of the document + ontology (+...). Etc.

>>  There *is software that made this assumption*. In our 
>> group, a student wrote an editor, RIC, that did exactly this. DanC and 
>> Tim, at the WWW BOF, I'm pretty sure, said that this was what you 
*had* 
>> to do. DanC said, I believe, that all his software already did that.
>
>Did I say that? Oh well. These days, I use and write lots of
>software that doesn't always do that.

That's interesting. Nice extra data point.

Tim, it's perhaps time for you to step in with a clarification of the 
"commitment" thesis.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.

Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2003 15:32:51 UTC