W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > November 2002

RE: LANG: need to CLOSE Issue 5.6 Imports as magic syntax

From: Jerome Euzenat <Jerome.Euzenat@inrialpes.fr>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 17:54:05 +0100
Message-Id: <a05111b0ab9f0422a46fc@[]>
To: "Massimo Marchiori" <massimo@w3.org>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>


	I need some clarification here.

In his message (RE: LANG: need to CLOSE Issue 5.6 Imports as magic 
synt) of 07/11/2002, Massimo Marchiori wrote:
>pps In case there's no consensus, note I would not be opposed to the 
>(at that point, reasonable) "leave import after v1" proposal
>that DanC and Jim are advocating.

Would this practically mean that users will have to put all their 
assertions in the same <rdf:RDF>  </rdf:RDF> until the next version?

(this is a real question, please answer, but I carry on).

I guess not. This is my understanding that you still can refer to 
objets by someURI#Foo and the interpreter will be in charge of 
computing the closure for getting the meaning (*). Right?
That's the implicit import.

Is this the alternative that we are facing?

(*) The only objection I find to this way of doing is that, I still 
do not really know which a URI should allows us to locate a 
definition (but I can sleep with that). The objection that Web people 
might make to both kind of import is that content is negociated, and 
thus you never now what will really be imported in another context.

  Jérôme Euzenat                  __
                                  /      /\
  INRIA Rhône-Alpes,            _/  _   _   _ _    _
                               /_) | ` / ) | \ \  /_)
  655, avenue de l'Europe,    (___/___(_/_/  / /_(_________________
  Montbonnot St Martin,       /        http://www.inrialpes.fr/exmo
  38334 Saint-Ismier cedex,  /          Jerome.Euzenat@inrialpes.fr
  France____________________/                Jerome.Euzenat@free.fr
Received on Thursday, 7 November 2002 11:55:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:37 UTC