Leo Obrst <lobrst@mitre.org> writes: > Jeremy's new rendition is much better. However, the conflation with > URIs is not. Every ontology needs "display names", for many > reasons. We had ample support of this in the content > interoperability use cases. And these "lexical representation" names > are only the beginning, and apply in a limited (but very important > context). Why not tie this in to the "tags" we already need? I.e., > "true" metadata about objects. I'd be against this. The association of human-readable labels with ontology terms is a different task to the attachment of provenance to statements, and should be represented in this doc by a separate requirement (not least because it seems likely that they will be supported by different mechanisms in the final language). -- Nick Gibbins nmg@ecs.soton.ac.uk IAM (Intelligence, Agents, Multimedia) tel: +44 (0) 23 80592831 Electronics and Computer Science fax: +44 (0) 23 80592865 University of SouthamptonReceived on Friday, 22 February 2002 05:16:50 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 27 January 2005 18:04:48 GMT