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

At 4:30 PM -0600 10/29/02, Dan Connolly wrote:
>I find some of the recent design discussion interesting, and
>I'm still mulling over the 9Oct suggestion from Hayes...
>but I just ran this by my colleagues again, and my position
>is still that we should POSTPONE this issue; take
>it out of owl until the next version.
>I hope folks will consider whether they could live
>without a standardized design for this feature for
>a year or so.

While I would prefer to resolve than postpone this (and any other) 
issue, I could live with it.  However, I do believe it would mean 
that we would have to demote R3 from requirement to Objective:

>R3. Explicit ontology extension
>     Ontologies must be able to explicitly extend other ontologies in 
>order to reuse terms while adding new classes and properties. 
>Ontology extension must be a transitive relation; if ontology A 
>extends ontology B, and ontology B extends ontology C, then ontology 
>A implicitly extends ontology C as well.
>     Motivation: Shared ontologies

I'd hate to see us start to demote too many of these...
Professor James Hendler
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)

Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 18:39:40 UTC