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

I agree that making imports an RDF property is dangerous. However, the
Joint Committee did not want to add any syntax extensions to RDF when
they created DAML+OIL (well, with the exception of daml:collection
parseType, which at least looks like RDF). For WebOnt, I would be very
much in favor of creating special syntax for imports. I'll make sure the
feedback from this list on the issue gets heard in WebOnt's meetings
when they discuss the "imports" issue.

Jeff

Drew McDermott wrote:
> 
>    [me]
>    >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 Wednesday, 8 May 2002 14:59:48 UTC