- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 11:40:30 -0600
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Cc: DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 10:55 -0500, Bijan Parsia wrote: > Pursuant to this action item, I met with Steve on Friday (thanks dan > for getting the actions out, since it reminded me to do this). I > believe I convinced him that we could pretty effectively represent what > he wanted in OWL. > > I do not have a fully worked out proposal, but you can examine the > thing we hacked together: > http://www.mindswap.org/dav/ontologies/bijan/2005/dawg/TestClosedOver > > (You may need to run it through a pretty printer, or use Swoop: > http://www.mindswap.org/2004/SWOOP/ > or protege or your favorite editor.) I looked at it thru N3/turtle glasses... I don't see any actual claims about MyStore being "closedOver" RDFS or owl-dl or anything. What am I missing? > Right now it uses nominals to represent graphs with different > expressivities. Also, I don't know why some are Things and some are Expressivitys: :owl-dl a :Expressivity . :owl-full a :Expressivity . :owl-lite a owl:Thing . :rdf a owl:Thing . > It would be nicer if this were entirely class based, > but I'm not sure how that accords with the instance level modeling I > was hearing. > > If the action was to show the feasibility, then it is completed. I suppose it's done to my satisfaction, but it doesn't convince me that we should standardize this idiom at this time; i.e. anybody who wants it standardized will please flesh out more details. Maybe Kendall groks well enough to run with it as is. > Cheers, > Bijan. > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 7 March 2005 17:40:32 UTC