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: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 00:56:36 +0100
To: "Dan Connolly <connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>, Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>, www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF5E09B254.46857F3B-ONC1256C6D.00825F41-C1256C6D.00839233@agfa.be>

While I agree with Frank's
  can specify to my reaoner from which
  premises it should draw its conclusions
(I actually need that all the time)
but it's like with the proof/explanation
stuff that that is better postponed.
There is anyhow a solution for the
testcases in that all premises could
be given explicitly in the manifest file.

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

                    Dan Connolly                                                                                       
                    <connolly@w3.org>        To:     Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>                         
                    Sent by:                 cc:     Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>,                 
                    www-webont-wg-requ        www-webont-wg@w3.org                                                     
                    est@w3.org               Subject:     Re: LANG: need to CLOSE Issue 5.6 Imports as magic syntax    
                    2002-11-10 11:39                                                                                   

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
> me
> > to it?
> >
> > This answer is so important to me because I could not live with OWL if
> > above scenario were not possible. Note: there is nothing fuzzy here
> > concerning
> > trust, commitment, asserting-or-not, etc. I just want to understand how
> can
> > specify to my reaoner from which premises it should draw its
> >
> 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
> 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 18:57:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:38 UTC