- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 14:08:07 -0500
- To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, "Frank van Harmelen" <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
At 11:06 AM -0500 11/10/02, Jonathan Borden wrote: >Frank van Harmelen wrote: > >> >> QUESTION: without an explicit imports construct, >> how can I ever use the contents of someURI2, >> which contains the range definition of someURI1#Prop1 ? >> >> I find this question so obvious that I fear it will have been answered >> before by the proponents of the "no import in OWL-v1", and I have >> probably just missed the answer to this. If so, please can someone point >me >> to it? >> >> This answer is so important to me because I could not live with OWL if the >> above scenario were not possible. Note: there is nothing fuzzy here >> concerning >> trust, commitment, asserting-or-not, etc. I just want to understand how I >can >> specify to my reaoner from which premises it should draw its conclusions. >> > >Good argument. This one seems to be compelling that we have an explicit >imports. > >Aside from that, daml:imports *is* part of DAML+OIL and we really should >make some attempt to stick to keeping such features of DAML+OIL in OWL >unless there is some consensus *against*. Given that this is part of >DAML+OIL, I find the arguments that owl:imports is somehow outside the scope >of WebOnt WG less than compelling. > Jonathan All, please be careful - no one has said that owl:imports is out of the scope of the WG. Out of scope determinations are made by the chairs, and I know I think this is very much in our scope, and can't imagine Guus feels otherwise. Neither have I said we don't need to think about imports or that it isn't important. Dan Connolly has suggested we POSTPONE the issue, making it clear that there are a lot of aspects of linking and importing yet to be explored and that maybe wedon't want to codify something we'll later regret. I've come to reluctantly aree with him becuase I think imports is SO important that I'm made uncomfortable having our WG rule on it at this time - I'd prefer to leave it open for a later RDF/OWL combined "Architecture group" to get it right, and to have OWL and RDF(S) have a single unified approach to the inclusion of information not found on a particular document So no one has said imports is bad or shouldn't be there - the question we've been debating is whether people are currently comfortable enough to believe the solution on the table is one we won't come to regret at some later time. At this point I believe the issue has been clearly stated. As I understand it, we are waiting for some specific wording to be suggested as to the closing of the issue, and how it will be adressed in our documents -- once that is there, we can have a formal vote on the issue, register objections, and move on. -JH -- Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 240-731-3822 (Cell) http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Sunday, 10 November 2002 14:08:14 UTC