Re: Requirements Document

On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 13:45, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
[...]
> The document uses words with technical meaning in places where the
> technical meaning may not be what is wanted.  In particular,  unless
> ``resource'' means what it means in RDF I think that it should be avoided.
> So
> 	Ontologies must be resources with their own unique identifiers.
> can easily be read as implying that ontologies must be objects just like
> regular objects.  

Yes, that's the requirement I agreed to. It seems like you
have something else in mind, but I can't tell what.

> The document anticipates some technical features of OWL.  In particular, it
> uses URI as the term identification mechanism.

Again, to me, that's a straightfoward elaboration
of the requirement that we agreed to:

" A unambiguous term referencing using URIs"
	-- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jan/0089.html

>  This brings up the URI vs
> QName discussion.  

Does it? Perhaps you mean to bring up the URI vs QName discussion,
but I don't see how the requirements document does.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/