- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 02:11:58 +0100
- To: jonathan@openhealth.org
- Cc: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
> > 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! > > Two thoughts: > > 1) Where does it say that the rande of owl:imports is an owl:Ontology? I > understand what I think you mean in English, but *literally* the range of > owl:imports is a web document that contains a set of RDF triples, *not* a > single object of rdf:type owl:Ontology. What do the ontologists want? ;-) I thought it's more like a formula written on a web document and the formula is not the document... > 2) An ontology seems to me to be a subclass of a web document. Seems to you ;-) > In either case I don't think this is a showstopper problem with > owl:imports -- and to be clear this discussion is in the context of removing > owl:imports from the current version of OWL. I think we are incomplete. -- , Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 14 February 2003 20:12:43 UTC