Re: REQDOC: New Draft

On February 26, Jim Hendler writes:
> >Moreover, the ontology language
> >itself provides no mechanism for adding annotations - we are relying
> >on RDF (or some similar mechanism) for that.
> 
>   That is a possible decision for this group to take, but we are 
> certainly able to decide to have language features relating to 
> instances if we wish - and the charter doesn't rule that out. For 
> example, the group could descide that
> "owl:sameInstance" is something we wanted to add, and that would 
> certainly be within scope.

Fair enough, but it doesn't appear in the REQDOC either as a
requirement or as an objective.


> >13. Section 5, "Definitional constraints on conjunctive types". It
> >seems strange to have this as an objective as it is just a special
> >case of the requirement for being able to state class
> >equivalence/subsumption relationships.
> >
> 
> again, seems to me Ian is pre-guessing a solution - he may well be 
> right, but we're not constrained for this to be implemented as a 
> special case.

The point is that it seems strange to have an objective that is
subsumed by a requirement.

Ian




> -- 
> Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
> Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
> Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
> AV Williams Building, Univ of Maryland		  College Park, MD 20742
> http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler