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

Re: Issue 5.13 mediatypes: Proposal to CLOSE

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 22:28:27 -0500
Message-ID: <00ee01c2a18e$8988ff40$7c01a8c0@ne.mediaone.net>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>



>
> Hmm... you've reduced the options from 3 (XML, RDF, OWL)
> to 2... I guess I don't object strongly, but it seems
> worthwhile, to me, to note that folks can use app/xml
> if they just want to ship OWL around without really
> asserting it.

See "When an OWL document is served with the application/xml media type, no
particular interpretation is indicated ..."

Does this need to be elaborated?

>
> > I have changed the entailment parameter to accept a URIref which points
to
> > something (e.g. a model theory) which says which entailments are
intended to
> > be licensed by the author/server of the document.
>
> I still think this entailment parameter isn't worth doing.
>

Are you saying that the user of a document is allowed to pick which
entailments are licensed? Since OWL Full, for example, licenses additional
entailments above and beyond what is licensed by simple RDF, is there
anyplace where the server of a document is allowed to indicate which
entailments are licensed? It seems sort of essential to me that if you
actually want RDF assertions to be taken with some semblence of those in a
legal document that the asserter would have some ability to state under what
theory the assertions are to be considered. Perhaps I am missing something
here.

Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2002 22:49:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:55 GMT