- From: Hamish Harvey <david.harvey@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 15:21:14 +0100
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
On Friday 23 April 2004 08:28, Phil Dawes wrote: > Peter F. Patel-Schneider writes: > > In the absence of any indication to the > > contrary, it is generally a good idea to have some mechanism that > > provides a base mechanism for picking up information about terms. > > However, why should there not be a mechanism (such as owl:imports) that > > can be used by the creator of a document to indicate where other > > information of terms used in the document, including information that > > could be deemed to provide `definitions' for terms in the document, can > > be found? > > Because a lot of the time there *isn't* a document! > > E.g. The information comes back as the result of a query against a > remote RDF store. This is method used for obtaining RDF data in all of > the semantic-web applications I've been involved in writing. Do those RDF stores allow a query to be expressed as a GETable URI? So you could say blah owl:imports <query URI> . Cheers, Hamish
Received on Friday, 23 April 2004 11:23:23 UTC