Re: Why not import everything? (was: Re: getting daml:imports right is easy?)

   >Well, our disagreement is clear, but, at least in part, easily
   >settled.  In our view, 'imports' *is* magic syntax, and not a property
   >of anything.

   [Pat Hayes]
   I agree, that is the only sensible way to look at it.  If/when we get 
   around to putting something like this into the CL standard it will 
   definitely be a special syntax, not a normal logical assertion. If it 
   were an assertion it would have to be in a special meta-level 
   concerned with ontologies as entities, and I don't think anyone wants 
   to get involved with that.

In case anyone needs further arguments in favor of this position,
consider this one: If 'imports' is a property, then I can make
statements like:

    "There exists an ontology that this one imports."

    "Ont-1 imports every elements of {Ont-A, Ont-B, Ont-C} that Ont-2
    does not import."

    "Ont-1 imports every ontology that doesn't import itself."

These are pernicious but unavoidable as far as I can see.

                                             -- Drew McDermott

Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 15:40:55 UTC