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

Re: layering (5.3, 5.10): Sardinia compromise?

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 22:17:06 -0400
Message-ID: <00ae01c215a5$14bb46c0$0201a8c0@ne.mediaone.net>
To: "Massimo Marchiori" <massimo@w3.org>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

Massimo Marchiori wrote:
> I missed the aforementioned conversation, alas, but notice
> that we just need to read better the wowg's archives: the different-domain
> proposal has been my point since the very beginning
> (cf. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0037.html ,
> also
> reported at a teleconf...).

Might you respond to
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0045.html ? (just
so we can try to sort out if we are all on the same page :-)

> Even more, for me the "same-domain" had *NEVER BEEN AN OPTION* (i.e., not
> even *thought* about imposing  a same-domain layering chain), and took me
> while
> to digest what Peter & Pat actually meant by their "layering is
> argument (again, cf the above email...).

By "different domain" are you suggesting that OWL might provide an entirely
different semantics for a graph of e.g. N-triples, than RDF, i.e. that
triples become the _syntax_ of OWL which provides its own model theory (i.e.
semantics) ?

Received on Sunday, 16 June 2002 22:30:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:45 UTC