Re: A way out of the "dark"

> 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?

well, I think I've not understood your proposal ;-)
we have been assuming (so far) that Qnames are nothing
but a syntactic shorthand to write down a URI
e.g. eg:aaa is actually <http://example.org/test#aaa>
given that @prefix eg: <http://example.org/test#> .
so we always have URI's aren't we?
what am I missing?

--
Jos