- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 29 Apr 2002 13:02:03 -0500
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, timbl@w3.org
- Cc: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
FYI... I found Jeff H's arguments for why we needed daml:imports appealing, if not compelling; I tried to use those arguments to convince TimBL, but no sale. I think TimBL's position is pretty much the one Pat H. is talking about here... On Mon, 2002-04-29 at 11:40, Pat Hayes wrote: [...] > However, I still wonder if we need it. Consider the admittedly naive > assumption that anyone who uses a vocabulary is committed to using it > the same way. Then we don't need importing: just use the same names > is all you have to do. OK, so it is going to break down at times; [...] > This suggests a vision of an SW which is in a constant process of > self-repair. [...] I find both positions acceptable. In practice, like most folks, I do whatever is easiest; absent some piece of software rewarding me for including daml:imports stuff, I don't put it in my data. Part of me says Jeff H is right and I'm gonna be sorry... I'm pretty sure Tim is out of the office this week, but perhaps he'll be interested to wade in when he finds this, some weeks from now... -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 29 April 2002 14:01:46 UTC