W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-w3pm@w3.org > June 2008

RE: XG W3pm Scope

From: Conrad Bock <conrad.bock@nist.gov>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 16:35:28 -0400
To: "'Evan Wallace'" <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>, "'David Leal'" <david.leal@caesarsystems.co.uk>
Cc: "'Bohms, H.M. \(Michel\)'" <michel.bohms@tno.nl>, <public-xg-w3pm@w3.org>
Message-ID: <016601c8c5b9$5cb05220$b3200681@MEL.NIST.GOV>


 >  The following triple raises a more fundamental question:

 >  > :PhysicalQuantitySpace    rdfs:subClassOf owl:Class .

 >  How is the Product Modeling XG planning on using the Semantic Web
 >  languages?  The above triple messes with the OWL vocabulary.  Do you
 >  care if you stay in OWL DL or do you intend your OWL/RDFS model for
 >  these things to be merely a schema for data in RDF form?

This was true in OWL 1, but will it be in the next version?  We have
tooling examples where the above seems to work (ie, you can still reason
over the instances of, for example, PhysicalQuantitySpace).

This was the point of my previous message: technology moves.  If we gate
the language based on technology, we're in danger of misreading the
future, even assuming we have an accurate grasp of the present. :)

 >  I strongly disagree.  First you must know the purpose you have in
 >  mind for creating these models in this XG.  

Sure, but that's much more general than your concern above.  I'd
personally like reasoning in general, so much the better if it is in the
ever-expanding DL.

Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2008 20:36:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:38:52 UTC