- 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