Re: Punning discussion

• From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
• Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:12:55 +0000
• To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
• CC: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <47974B67.7030700@hpl.hp.com>

Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> 2) Two cited cases for punning are Metamodeling and being able to have 
> real properties on classes/properties. But what exactly do people 
> consider Metamodeling, and does the punning proposal address these 
> cases. As an example, it does not address the cases on Conrad's 
> Metamodeling page because we don't plan to support modification of owl 
> syntax.
> 

I think it would be much easier to have this discussion in the context 
of a consensus use case and requirements document. I suggested we 
postpone further discussion of punning until after we have published 
such a document.

Jeremy

Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 14:13:25 UTC