- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 10 Nov 2002 16:39:25 -0600
- To: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Cc: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
On Sun, 2002-11-10 at 10:06, 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 well, sorta... we never did figure out exactly what it means. And Mike Dean himself has reported that most users get by without it. > and we really should > make some attempt to stick to keeping such features of DAML+OIL in OWL > unless there is some consensus *against*. I'm not sure what you mean by "some consensus"; yes, stuff that's in DAML+OIL stays in unless we decide to take it out. Like any decision, we aim for consensus, but if we don't have time to get it, we can make a decision with outstanding dissent (i.e. the chair can put the question). > 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. Who has argued that it's out of scope? -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Sunday, 10 November 2002 17:38:48 UTC