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

Fwd: LANG: Structure extra-log data (was Re: Lang: owl:ontolgy)

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 12:49:00 -0400
Message-Id: <p05111702b9aa6a55ec3a@[]>
To: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

Oops, slipped and send this only to Peter - I meant it for the list.

>Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 22:12:04 -0400
>To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
>From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
>Subject: LANG: Structure extra-log data (was Re: Lang: owl:ontolgy)
>>So far, I haven't seen an example that needs structured data in the
>>extra-logical portion.
>I am separating this to specifically reply to this issue
>The notion of extra-logical can be a flat set of assertions or it 
>could be an entire structure - why do I think we need the latter? 
>Consider that we have two main choices - we can try to come up with 
>a set of all possible keywords and thus list them - i.e. we can say 
>"to generate a version use" owl:version, to say what 
>internationalization we need say "owl:international" etc. etc.  This 
>would mean we define a closed set, and anyone wanting to use 
>anything else, tough.  My choice is that we have some other sort of 
>thing like owl:Tag which is a way we can let people create their own 
>tag sets and we can know that those are tags (and therefore can be 
>ignored by a reasoner) - and thus we are less limiting. We also 
>don't have to worry about these things in the model theory - in 
>fact, I would be willing to declare owl:Tag to be rdf:Dark if that 
>is needed
>  -JH

Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
Received on Sunday, 15 September 2002 12:49:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:47 UTC