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

RE: DTTF: List Ontology test case

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 14:35:03 +0100
To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDOENHCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jonathan@openhealth.org]
> Sent: 25 April 2002 14:24
> To: Jeremy Carroll; www-webont-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: DTTF: List Ontology test case
> Jeremy
> >
> > Ths test case is meant to capture that intent.
> > If daml:Lists are dark, then this sort of ontology has little formal
> > meaning.
> >
> I believe that Pat's entire point, is that having something 'dark' to RDF
> would free the OWL MT to provide a formal meaning, and since the
> lists are
> defined using OWL, that would indeed be the case. Certainly a
> construct that
> is dark to both RDF and OWL would have no meaning (although perhaps
> something like DAML Rules, or N3 etc. would be free to define meaning for
> those constructs etc.). To me, this seems like a proper layering/language
> extension mechanism.

I certainly don't dispute that saying the daml:Lists constraints
normatively in English would be a good thing.

It's just I find it an odd exception if we cannot use OWL to say things
that it is clearly capable of saying about other things, when we are trying
to build a description of itself, such as daml:first being a
UniqueProperty. i.e. my position is having normatively bootstrapped in
English, that OWL is then capable of describing some aspects of itself.

Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 09:35:08 UTC

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