W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > June 2005

Re: [protege-owl] Re: Why not standart RDF reification

From: Gian Piero Zarri <zarri@noos.fr>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 15:59:19 +0200
Message-ID: <42BAC037.7050902@noos.fr>
To: protege-owl@smi.stanford.edu
Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
    Dear Vincent,

    Thank you for your interest in NKRL. With respect to the "Best 
Practices" vocabulary, I know only what you also probably now. When she 
announced, few days ago, a new version of her (with Alan Rector) 
document about "N-ary Relations", Natasha Noy also spoke of a 
"forthcoming note" intended to introduce a "standard vocabulary for 
describing that something is an n-ary  relations and for defining 
mappings for n-ary relations between RDF/ OWL and other languages". I am 
waiting, like you...


    G.P. Zarri

Vincent Hikida wrote:

> <>
> Have a look at NKRL, e.g., 
> http://e-msha.msh-paris.fr/Agora/Tableaux%20de%20bord/Euforbia/Background%20Information/NKRL/ 
> :
> date-1: 15-june-2005
> date-2: 10-july-2005
> You will find there something of (probably) more theoretically sound 
> and stable than any W3C - SW Best Practice "vocabulary".
> Regards,
> Gian Piero ZARRI
> zarri@noos.fr, gpzarri@paris4.sorbonne.fr

> <>Thank you for the reference. On brief examination, NKRL seems to 
> have the ability express "effectivity". I don't know anything about 
> the "W3C SW Best Practice vocabulary" or how it relates to OWL. Do you 
> think it should be extended along the lines of NKRL at least as it 
> relates to time?
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2005 13:59:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 27 January 2023 01:58:24 UTC