Re: Another semantics question

On Wed Apr 23 10:41:15 2008 Phil Archer said:

>>>>> and which should we use?
>>>>
>>>> It's hard to tell in isolation, depends on where "resourceset_1" comes
>>>> from. If it is defined as a restriction on a property, then these two
>>>> might as well mean the same.
>>>
>>> Good. I much prefer the second option - i.e. the one that doesn't   
>>> mention hasIRI. The context is a GRDDLed DR so I think this is clear.
>>
>> well, there's no way around the hasIRI, it's lurking there somewhere in
>> the definition of "resourceset_1". It just that it's not visible in this
>> particular fragment.
>
> Yes, but hasIRI isn't actually used anywhere in the class. We define  
> hasIRI as a semantic extension linking strings to URIs but then we  
> gently ignore it and use regex for most things. Actually, if you succeed  
> in using regex for port numbers and CIDR blocks then we should probably  
> change the semantic extension to define wdr:regex directly. This is, of  
> course, the grey area - more semantic gloop actually - that we're in  
> here ...

Well, yes, I totally agree that it better to hide the IRI-as-a-string
extension under a "front-end" that does what POWDER needs and nought
more. Which was ALT 2 in the "long email", which calls for the addition
of an OWL vocab item hiding the hop from abstract instances to concrete
IRI strings. The suggestion there was to add a quantifier over *resources*
(not strings) which magically collects all resources the IRI of which is
whithin an XML type.

So, what will get hacked? underlying RDF semantics or OWL "front-end"
vocabulary?

s