- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 16:28:19 +0300
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Massimo: [[ As an aside, note the related counter-can-of-worms: leaving this unspecified, there is the potential risk that there is no minimal official "conformance level" an OWL reasoner could rely on as far as imports are concerned. Which leaves the way open to abuses (suppose you put some info, and then you import your license statements in another file... some apps could consider them, some other ignore them). ]] I note that the only relevant OWL processors that we have defined are OWL Syntax Checkers and OWL Consisteny Checkers. The former MUST process the imports closure, unambiguously. The latter SHOULD process the imports closure (unless an inconsistency is detected), since an OWL Consistency Checker SHOULD NOT return Unknown. Complete consistency checkers MUST process the imports closure. Personally I feel confortable with this level of normativity for imports (SHOULD rather than MUST) Jeremy
Received on Monday, 26 May 2003 10:28:21 UTC