- From: Andrei S. Lopatenko <andrei@derpi.tuwien.ac.at>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 12:55:12 +0200
- To: "David Martin" <martin@ai.sri.com>
- Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Martin" <martin@ai.sri.com> To: "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> >>>> If, however, we publish them with an explicit >>>>indication that they are derived from, and claimed to be valid only >>>>with respect to, this narrower context, then our published claims >>>>(including this rider) can be used monotonically by other reasoners >>>>with perfect safety. > > For instance, it > > would be useful to be able to say that, within a given namespace, a > > property has cardinality 1 (without saying anything about property > > instances outside of the namespace). (I suppose there's an issue about > > what namespace a property instance belongs to, but for present purposes, > > I don't think that needs to be dealt with here.) Just a comment I think that solutions when publish information with an explicit indication that they are derived from becomes a real thing. As example technology of application profiles (http://archive.dstc.edu.au/RDU/staff/jane-hunter/www10/paper.html) suggested by C. Lagoze and Hunter (project Harmony http://metadata.net/harmony/) allows to redefine meaning of metadata elements for application domain. So each application must publish explicit information about its data and it is very close to an explicit indication mentioned early The communication between aplications can be established in only case when each application accept the limits of the context of the other application
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2001 06:50:26 UTC