W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > January 2003

Re: [re-send] Re: XSLT: status of owls:Documentation unclear

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 15:36:24 -0500
To: Masahiro Hori <HORIM@jp.ibm.com>
Cc: Jerome Euzenat <Jerome.Euzenat@inrialpes.fr>, www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030126203624.GG659@tux.w3.org>

* Masahiro Hori <HORIM@jp.ibm.com> [2003-01-27 05:29+0900]
> Should we think about allowing additional metadata (.e.g., DC and TopicMap)
> into arbitrary position of an OWL document?  Or, is it sufficient to allow
> the inclusion of additional metadata in the header section of OWL?

Yes please! Some metadata is better expressed per-class, per-property; for
eg. pointers to test cases, decisions of the creating organisation., etc etc.
RDFS allows arbitrary additional metadata for classes and properties, which is 
why OWL can be layered on top of RDFS. A similar flexibility in OWL's design 
might allow an OWL 1.1 or OWL 2.0 to be added later...

Received on Sunday, 26 January 2003 15:36:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:51 UTC