- From: Arthur Barstow <barstow@mediaone.net>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 21:15:21 -0500
- To: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
From: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org> > I think the text from M&S is simply expressing a cardinality > constraint, part of the M&S (informal) ontology. Therefor this > constraint should be handled when/if other ontology information is > handled, and not in the RDF parser. This sounds like revisionist history to me, Sandro :-) Now that we have 2-3 years of experience with M&S and some ontology layers on top of RDF, the W3C's position on the statement in question is that it is about "M&S's informal ontology"? Since M&S never mentions ontologies, if there is some type of informal/implied ontology, will the RDF Core WG makes it explicit [and clarify the statement in question]?
Received on Monday, 21 January 2002 21:20:25 UTC