W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > May 2003

Re: basicmkr.owl

From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@cdepot.net>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 12:33:56 -0700
Message-ID: <003501c31d74$75447b60$bd7ba8c0@rhm8200>
To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, "www-rdf-logic at W3C" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>

1. You are correct - I meant the resource - thanks for the correction.
I was juggling the syntax to get something that worked, and did not
understand this semantic difference.

2.a. "Defining" properties (like mkr:similarTo) in an "rdfs:comment"
seems to be common practice in RDF and OWL.  I prefer a
genus-differentia definition, but did not give one in this case.

2.b. Yes, MKR is an "extension" of OWL Full (although I designed
MKR from first principles without any knowledge of OWL).  The MKR
extensions include context, definitions, questions (a simple query
methods (procedural capability), n-ary relations, conditionals, iteration,
and commands which dynamically change instance-class hierarchies
(concept formation).

2.c. MKR is English-like, for easy reading & writing by humans.

2.d. I can implement a complete project in MKR, from Ontology
definition to data input to output reports.

Dick McCullough
knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
knowledge haspart proposition list;

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>
To: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@cdepot.net>; "www-rdf-logic at W3C"
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: basicmkr.owl

> This may validate but it does not mean what I think you intend it to, for
> example:
> 1) the object of an property given as the value of an _attribute_ is
> a literal string... in most cases I believe you intend these to be URIrefs
> which should be indicated as
> ...
> <foo:prop rdf:resource="#foo" />
> rather than
> <foo:bar foo:prop="foo" />
> 2) OWL has no concept of "mkr:similarTo" so although you can write this
> in OWL, OWL conformant software wouldn't have a clue as wether this is at
> all 'similar' to "owl:sameAs" -- so I presume you are suggesting that MKR
> some type of extension to OWL Full? Which is fine ... I presume you have
> software that can suck in some OWL ontologies as well as MKR statements
> do something interesting?
> Jonathan
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard H. McCullough
> To: Richard H. McCullough ; www-rdf-logic at W3C
> Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 7:30 PM
> Subject: Re: basicmkr.owl
> After several iterations, this version
> http://rhm.cdepot.net/knowledge/theory/OWL/basicmkr.owl
> passed the RDF Validator.
> Dick McCullough
> knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
> knowledge haspart proposition list;
Received on Sunday, 18 May 2003 15:34:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:40 UTC