- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 04:37:13 -0500 (EST)
- To: alanruttenberg@gmail.com
- Cc: conrad.bock@nist.gov, public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> Subject: Re: UFDTF Metamodeling Document Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:11:28 -0500 > > On Nov 29, 2007, at 2:54 PM, Conrad Bock wrote: > > > Boris put it very well in > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Oct/0085.html > > where he says it is very useful to have a data storage > > specification for > > the language (his message would make quite a nice ad for OMG, > > actually!). It is important that such a storage specification be > > generally agreed if the stored ontologies are to be widely accessible. > > It isn't good for W3C and OMG to adopt different data storage > > specifications for OWL. > > Agreed, however does it make sense for there to be a storage > mechanism for OWL specifically, rather than building on whatever > storage mechanism is chosen for RDF? > > -Alan Absolutely. Tools need to be able to store OWL axioms and facts as entities different from RDF triples. In fact, building an OWL structural specification on top of an RDF storage methodology is probably the wrong thing to do. peter
Received on Friday, 30 November 2007 09:53:46 UTC