- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:27:45 -0600
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
As I understand things, the current meaning of imports is that including owl:imports B in a document A has exactly the same meaning as copying the imports closure of B into A. So I have a question: consider two documents A and AC which are identical except that A contains owl:imports B, and AC actually has the imports closure of B copied into it at that point, but has no reference whatever to B. These two documents have exactly the same meaning, right? And the first, but not the second, refers to another document. The point of this is that one intuitive argument that has been given for the use of owl:imports is that the cross-references between ontologies might support a kind of semantic Google process whereby the most-imported ontologies are rated as more trustworthy, or something like that. But since the current semantics doesn't require the links to exist, that seems to mean that it fails to capture something of potential importance. Roughly, the thing that is missing is a relationship between documents (or document tokens, or ontologies, maybe) which is that one of them agrees with, or endorses, the other. Comments? (In case you are suspicious, I'm honestly not trying to de-rail owl:imports, just to clarify the intention of how it is going to be used. If we want to keep the 'endorsement' sense, I think we can tweak the wording of our definition to retain it.) Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2002 13:27:48 UTC