There would be much to say, but I'll try to be quick instead, and directly provide a possible solution to the "dark triples / paradoxes" problem. In whatever OWL language we construct, we could simply add the following restriction on class expressions for the new OWL constructs: class names are all Qnames, but for those defined in RDF(S) and OWL Pro's: + makes things cleaner + helps a lot implementations + doesn't touch RDF, but only affects OWL + should get rid of all the problems we've had so far, and in fact should make much easier to formally prove properties of the system, like absence of paradoxes. Con's: - we lose reflection (so, eg, we won't be able to do an "OWL definition for OWL", like RDFS, for example, does). But well... who *really* cares, at least for version 1 :)? Now, some refinements: a) the restriction could of course be made more permissive b) to provide further extendability, we could in fact, for example, take out from the class names all Qnames in http://www.w3.org/ Thoughts? -MReceived on Wednesday, 17 April 2002 21:50:01 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:43 UTC