- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 10:34:21 -0400
- To: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@cdepot.net>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest at W3C <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
* Richard H. McCullough <rhm@cdepot.net> [2003-06-25 07:13-0700] > > Given the triples > (1) John height 60 > (2) John height 70 > can RDF say that (2) replaces (1) -- as opposed to > both (2) and (1) being true? > > Can OWL say that (2) replaces (1)? Neither the RDF, RDFS or OWL specs really goes far into this fascinating and rather tricky area. I do hope it'll get some attention in future standardisation work, once we've all got a better handle on the problem. In my FOAF experiments, I've often claimed that foaf:mbox is a 'static' unambiguous property, in that a given property/value pair (eg, foaf:mbox=mailto:danbri@w3.org) should never be true of varying objects over time. That's tough to formalise given our current ontology languages... Dan formalise given current current
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2003 10:34:22 UTC