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

Re: on media types for OWL (5.13)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:09:32 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20021030.180932.45263567.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: connolly@w3.org
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Subject: Re: on media types for OWL (5.13)
Date: 30 Oct 2002 16:58:30 -0600

> On Wed, 2002-10-30 at 08:07, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

[...]

> Hmm... the above example makes an interesting point in
> that there's no path to "follow your nose" from the
> premise to the owl spec; you could follow your nose
> from the conjectured conclusion back to the owl spec,
> if you were asked to prove the latter from the former.
> 
> So even in that case, I'm satisfied with just labelling the premise
> and the conclusion app/rdf.

What about the following then?

Is an agent that is validly reading the following OWL document

  <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="...the usual...">
   <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://foo.ex/bar#john">
     <rdf:type>
        <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://foo.ex/bar#Student">
     </rdf:type>
   </rdf:Description>
  </rdf:RDF>

allowed to respond that it does *not* entail

  <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="...the usual..."
   <rdf:list>
    <rdf:first rdf:resource="http://foo.ex/bar#john" />
    <rdf:rest rdf:resource="...the usual...#nil />
   </rdf:list>
  </rdf:RDF>


[...]

My belief is that there needs to be several media types to keep things like
this straight.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2002 18:09:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:53 GMT