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

Re: LANG: owl:quote

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 05:58:24 -0400
To: michael.smith@eds.com
Cc: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020425055824L.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com>
Subject: LANG: owl:quote
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:32:58 -0500

> Pat's comment (see below) reminded my of something I have been wondering
> about.  
> 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

There is no problem unless FOWL takes the same route as RDF, and tries to
mandate that all syntax in all collections of information that contain any
FOWL syntax must not only be the same syntax as that used by FOWL, but also
have a meaning compatible to the meaning assigned by FOWL.

Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 10:02:36 UTC

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