W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: Names or not?

From: Bernardo Cuenca Grau <bcg@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:07:11 +0000
Message-ID: <45DDCDBF.9040706@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: "Turner, David" <davidt@hp.com>
CC: public-owl-dev@w3.org


Hi David,


> Should NC (etc) be defined as a set of *names* of OWL classes (etc)? 

Yes, indeed. Of course, the fact that these are names is kind of 
implicit since these sets are part of a vocabulary, but we should
probably say this explicitly.

Thanks,

Bernardo


> I
> was under the impression that the sets of classes, individuals, and so
> on are still disjoint for computational reasons, and the syntax makes
> clear which interpretation of a particular name one should use at any
> time.
>
> (The repeated use of the letter N also suggests that names are intended)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/SUBM-owl11-semantics-20061219/
>
>   
Received on Thursday, 22 February 2007 17:10:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:54 GMT