- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 00:25:51 +0100
- To: jonathan@openhealth.org
- Cc: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
> > I understand you Jonathan, we did it like that
> > before, and we did similar ambiguous stuff
> > before in our entailment test case description.
> > I just wanted to say that we took that part of the
> > ambiguity out and I also understand that those
> > other constructs are not a standard yet.
> >
>
> I also understand what your issues are with respect to N3/CWM.
"ambiguous"
> is a strong word when we are speaking of test cases, however, and I would
> like you to define what you mean by "similar ambiguous stuff" -- is this
> ambiguous with respect to OWL?
No, not w.r.t. OWL.
It is that we now say
[ is log:conjunction of
( [ is log:semantics of <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/graph.axiom> ]
[ is log:semantics of <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl> ]
[ is log:semantics of <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema> ] ) ]
log:implies
[ is log:semantics of <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/graph.lemma> ] .
instead of
( <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/graph.axiom>
<http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl>
<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema> ) log:implies
<http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/graph.lemma> .
and the ambiguity is between the document
and what's written in the document.
> Where exactly is the ambiguity *with respect
> to OWL alone*?
The range of owl:imports is an owl:Ontology
and when we write
:foo owl:imports <http://example.org/ontology>.
it is a web document!
> I have heard folks make statements to the effect that they are uneasy
with
> owl:imports, but I just don't see the (actual as opposed to theoretical)
> issue. I need this spelled out very concretely so that I may better
> understand it.
This is a very practical issue for running code!
How else can we differentiate between the
web document and the stuff in the document???
(I must admit that I had a hard time to change
my mind as I always thought that that could
be builtin intention of the property so that
things could be done implicitly, but I now
think that explicitness is better)
-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 14 February 2003 18:26:34 UTC