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

On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 11:39, Dan Connolly wrote:
[...]
> > 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.
> 
> On the contrary; in your own words, "I like the extension
> made at someURI2". That's a clear expression of trust, no?
> 
> The only question is how to express that opinion to the machine.
> 
> At my disposal, I have a variety of options.

I just remembered another option; one that make the trust
issues even more clear:

I maintain an index of URI schemes

  http://www.w3.org/Addressing/schemes.html

it's not authoritative; it includes lots of stuff
from the authoritative registry, but also other stuff.

In March 2001, I started using Semantic Web techonolgies
  http://www.w3.org/Addressing/schemes.html#ctech
to maintain it.

In particular, I have specific rules that import
specific statements from the IANA registry:

[[[
# The registry is trusted about certain properties...
<http://www.iana.org/assignments/uri-schemes>
  :trustedAbout dc:description, ws:schemeName, ws:specifies,
                ws:reserves, inet:rfc.

[...]

# If a document is trusted about some property, all
# statements whose predicate is that property are lifed
# into this context.
{ :doc :trustedAbout :p.
  :doc :says [
      log:includes { :s :p :o }
    ].
} log:implies { :s :p :o }.


]]]

-- http://www.w3.org/Addressing/scheme-registry-rules.n3

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/