The writing on semantics seems to be coming along great... I noticed what looks like an inconsistency between the "stance on issues" take on 4.6... ======== http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/temp/owl/semantics.html#1.2 # The document does not have a construct (like daml:equivalentTo) for asserting that a name is the same as another name, assuming that issue 4.6 will be resolved against including this feature in OWL. ======== and an actual spec for that very feature: ==== excerpt from http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/temp/owl/rdfs.html Some OWL properties have iff characterizations If E is then <x,y> \in EXTI(SI(E)) iff owl:sameIndividualAs x = y ==== I hope the "stance on issues" bit is just out of date. If you have a moment to confirm, or to explain why it's not, I'd appreciate it. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 18:01:28 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:53 GMT