W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > April 2002

LANG: owl:quote

From: Smith, Michael K <michael.smith@eds.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:32:58 -0500
Message-ID: <B8E84F4D9F65D411803500508BE322140D57070D@USPLM207>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Pat's comment (see below) reminded my of something I have been wondering

While we rail against (or for) RDF's lack of RDF:QUOTE or RDF:DARK, we have
not made an OWL quoting mechanism a requirement.  For the same highly
technical reason that Pat notes below, it seems obvious that in the interest
of those who come after us and build on top of OWL we need OWL:QUOTE. Or
something equivalent that states that the content imbedded inside this tag,
while OWL notation, has no OWL semantic interpretation in this context.

Someone is going to want to be able to extend OWL to systems that can state
implications (IF a THEN b), attributions (The book states that the earth is
6000 years old), and similar contextually restricted propositions.

- Mike

Michael K. Smith
EDS Austin Innovation Centre
98 San Jacinto, #500
Austin, TX 78701
512 404-6683

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@ai.uwf.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 1:14 PM
> To: Massimo Marchiori
> Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: ACTION: task force unasserted triples
> ...
> There is 
> also the observation I would add personally, that I find it 
> incredible that such a large number of very smart people can waste so 
> much time over a tiny technical issue which is in any case 
> dumb-as-dirt obvious (Asserting an expression does not always assert 
> all its sub-expressions. If we have no way to indicate 
> sub-expressions, we have a problem. Solution: invent some way to not 
> assert sub-expressions.)
> That was a comment, not a proof [5].
> ...
> Pat
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 15:33:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:43 UTC