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

RE: MT for imports (was: Re: Imports Proposal)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 13 Nov 2002 10:35:33 -0600
To: "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com>
Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1037205333.11279.21587.camel@dirk>

On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 10:22, Smith, Michael K wrote:
> >If the WG decides to go with one of these import closures things (and 
> >Pat's examples below show yet more reasons I worry if we've got it 
> >right) we need to make sure we handle cycles in some correct way.
> Which is why all of the serious proposals compute the transitive closure
> of imports.
> Re Pat's questions.  I think they are not at this time our concern.

It seems to me that either they are our concern at this time
iff imports is our concern at this time.

> I thought we had explicitly rejected dealing with things like webs of
> trust.  Neither should WE be worrying about issues of cache coherency.
> Someone will have to, just not us. 

To me, that argues that we should postpone imports.

> This is another reason why I prefered not getting entailment involved 
> in the details of imports.  As Pat's examples point out yet again, 
> imports keeps bumping into these fundamentally operational issues.
> In order to address the problems that Pat raises, I suspect (guessing)
> that the distributed ontologies that work will use naming conventions
> to create versions.  That is, wine.owl will start out linked to
> wine_v_1.owl.
> As the wine ontology evolves, wine.owl will be linked to the successive 
> versions.  If I am extending wine.owl and am concerned about change 
> to the underlying ontology, I will import wine_v_1.owl, not wine.owl.

Yes, that's a pattern W3C uses to deal with trust issues
around our tech reports/specs; I can see it getting
used for ontologies too.

> What we want to provide is some minimalist scaffolding that can be used
> for initial experiments in how to build distributed knowledge bases.

Eek! No! DAML+OIL and OIL and Protoge and SHOE and ...
provide scaffolding for initial experiments.
(and based on those experiments, I think it's not yet cooked.)

Our job is to produce a W3C Recommendation; there
was a time when W3C put the 'Recommendation' label
on 'initial experiment' specs, but that time has long

"W3C considers that the ideas or technology specified by a
Recommendation are appropriate for widespread deployment"
 -- http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/tr.html#Recs

If our spec has stuff that we consider 'intial experiment'
material, then it has to stay at CR until we've demonstrated
sufficient implementation experience to make it
'appropriate for widespread deployment.'

I'd like to work on imports design and deployment
*after* we release OWL v1, not squeeze it into
the next few months.

> - Mike

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2002 11:36:03 UTC

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