- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 07:25:22 -0400
- To: "Jeff Heflin" <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Jeff Heflin wrote: > > ... However, I think that it > is still desirable to say that if the import "fails," any inferences are > inherently incomplete. Whether it was because the author mistyped the > URL or because the document being referenced was moved by its owner, > there is something that the author of the importing document wants > referenced, but the deductive system is unable to take it into > consideration. I believe saying the inferences are incomplete is much > more graceful than having a defined error condition in such cases > (although specific systems are free to raise warnings or errors in such > cases). However, I believe an error condition is still better than just > saying "well let's assume the imports statement refers to an empty > document." > The reason monotonicity is emphasized for Web applications is that we need to make such assumptions. Perhaps when an import is successful, we ought add a triple to the KB that says <http://example.org/ex.owl> owl:importStatus true . or something to that effect? I _wouldn't_ flag failures, as they might succeed at a later time (and so the absense of success is a better flag than explicit failure). Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2002 07:44:25 UTC