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

Re: evaluating DAML+OIL vs. WebOnt requirements

From: Mike Dean <mdean@bbn.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 20:03:44 -0500
Message-Id: <200201300103.UAA29195@cam-mbx1.bbn.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Dan,

This looks great!  A few comments:

1) Extending your recipe for strings, can't one express
unique URI naming of objects using

  :uniqueName
    a daml:UnambiguousProperty;  # each uniqueName denotes 1 object
    a daml:UniqueProperty.       # each object has only 1 uniqueName

2) For ontology management language features, I'd add that
DAML+OIL supports the use of other properties (such as
Dublin Core) with ontologies, but doesn't give them meaning.

3) For B solution to "tagging/grouping" problem, I think
we've overloading the term "tagging".  Some of us use the
term "tagging" for the use of statement IDs (e.g.
associating a statement with its source); DAML+OIL inherits
this ability from RDF, but doesn't give it meaning.  We
might want to split this into 2 requirements.

	Mike
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2002 20:05:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:47 GMT