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

Re: evaluating DAML+OIL vs. WebOnt requirements

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 30 Jan 2002 14:27:12 -0600
To: mike Dean <mdean@bbn.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1012422433.18285.54.camel@dirk>
On Tue, 2002-01-29 at 19:03, Mike Dean wrote:
> 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

yes; how is that different from what I wrote?

> 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.

What do you mean by that? It gives them just as much meaning
as any other ground fact, no?

> 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.

I thought we did split it into two requirements:
  Annotation/tagging of (whole) ontologies, which is an A requirement,
and
  tagging/grouping, i.e. giving properties to parts of ontologies, which
got a B.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2002 15:26:57 GMT

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