Re: AWWSW telecon 29 September 2009

Hi Jonathan,

I would rather start with the ontology and rules that I drafted over a
year earlier, and combine ideas from yours.  After all, that work was
done for this purpose.  Is there some reason you think that work should
be ignored?
http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswDboothsRules
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-awwsw/2008Jan/0001.html



David


On Fri, 2009-09-25 at 09:10 -0400, Jonathan Rees wrote:
> We could take up my proposal to take my http semantics ontology as the
> embryo of a note or report with December 1 target for a draft. That
> is, the note would consist of an introduction, the rdfs:comments from
> the ontology (suitably cleaned up and expanded), and any additional
> necessary exposition that doesn't fit in the comments.
> 
> http://w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/http.owl
> 
> The core of this is the class Correspondence modeling the three-place
> relation wa-representation corresponds to wa-resource since/until time
> t, which came from a suggestion by Pat (thanks Pat).
> 
> This diagram is more or less in alignment with it:
> 
> http://w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/jar-diagram-7.pdf
> 
> and the shell script (buggy, preliminary) that implements it is:
> 
> http://esw.w3.org/topic/AwwswHome?action=AttachFile&do=view&target=nose-follow.sh
> 
> The biggest missing piece, I think, is a semantics for 301/302/307
> that makes fewer assumptions than I had proposed to make (per exchange
> with Stuart). I think this means figuring out what the domain and
> range of "located at" are.
> 
> It would be nice to say more about 303 and LRDFF, but that seems like
> work we can put off.
> 
> Any alternative or additional agenda suggestions?
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> 
> 
-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
Cleveland Clinic (contractor)

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.

Received on Friday, 25 September 2009 15:05:20 UTC