W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > June 2003

Re: [Fwd: Re: Proposed response to Golbeck regarding imports issue]

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 17 Jun 2003 15:12:19 -0500
To: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
Cc: WebOnt <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1055880739.8943.284.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 10:35, Jeff Heflin wrote:
> Dan,
> In my proposed text regarding imports in Reference:
> > > > "Note that although owl:imports and namespace declarations may appear
> > > > redundant, they actually serve very different purposes. Namespace
> > > > declarations simply set up a shorthand for referring to identifiers.
> > > > They do not implicitly include the meaning of documents located at the
> > > > URI (although some applications may choose to process these documents in
> > > > addition to the original document). On the other hand, owl:imports does
> > > > not provide any shorthand notation for referring to the identifiers from
> > > > the imported document. Therefore, it is common to have a corresponding
> > > > namespace declaration for any ontology that is imported."
> > > 
> Peter has asked that I remove the comment about some applications
> choosing to process the URIs associated with namespaces:
> > > I oppose including the parenthetical remark above.  I believe that such
> > > permissive statements have no place in our documents.
> > > 
> Would you oppose the removal of this parenthetical remark?

I thought about it a bit... I'm already on record as objecting
to the owl:imports design... so yes, I oppose removal of this
parenthetical remark; but that's not news; it shouldn't affect
the editor's work in preparing a document that's consistent
with the decisions of the WG.

Carry on without me, please.

Oh! a parting suggestion...

I would appreciate a NOTE in the document that documents
the outstanding dissent around owl:imports.

>  I expect that
> it is more important to you than anyone else in the WG. So if you can
> live with its removal, then in order to conserve WG effort, that's what
> I will do.
> If on the other hand, we have two WG members who disagree, I ask that
> the chairs rule that this be a matter of editor's discretion. I do not
> believe the remark is in conflict with our resolution of imports, but I
> also do not believe it is required in the text. Editor's discretion of
> course would mean that Guus gets to decide, but if he'd rather defer
> that to me as the handler of the imports comment, then I'd be willing.
> Finally, I'd like to remind everyone that Reference is not a normative
> document, so the impact of whatever we decide will be minor. Let's not
> waste too much WG time on this!
> Jeff
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2003 16:11:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:46 UTC