- From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@cdepot.net>
- Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 12:33:56 -0700
- To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, "www-rdf-logic at W3C" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
1. You are correct - I meant the resource - thanks for the correction. I was juggling the syntax to get something that worked, and did not understand this semantic difference. 2.a. "Defining" properties (like mkr:similarTo) in an "rdfs:comment" seems to be common practice in RDF and OWL. I prefer a genus-differentia definition, but did not give one in this case. 2.b. Yes, MKR is an "extension" of OWL Full (although I designed MKR from first principles without any knowledge of OWL). The MKR extensions include context, definitions, questions (a simple query language), methods (procedural capability), n-ary relations, conditionals, iteration, and commands which dynamically change instance-class hierarchies (concept formation). 2.c. MKR is English-like, for easy reading & writing by humans. 2.d. I can implement a complete project in MKR, from Ontology definition to data input to output reports. Dick McCullough knowledge := man do identify od existent done; knowledge haspart proposition list; ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org> To: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@cdepot.net>; "www-rdf-logic at W3C" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org> Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 10:59 AM Subject: Re: basicmkr.owl > This may validate but it does not mean what I think you intend it to, for > example: > > 1) the object of an property given as the value of an _attribute_ is always > a literal string... in most cases I believe you intend these to be URIrefs > which should be indicated as > ... > <foo:prop rdf:resource="#foo" /> > > rather than > <foo:bar foo:prop="foo" /> > > 2) OWL has no concept of "mkr:similarTo" so although you can write this down > in OWL, OWL conformant software wouldn't have a clue as wether this is at > all 'similar' to "owl:sameAs" -- so I presume you are suggesting that MKR is > some type of extension to OWL Full? Which is fine ... I presume you have > software that can suck in some OWL ontologies as well as MKR statements and > do something interesting? > > Jonathan > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Richard H. McCullough > To: Richard H. McCullough ; www-rdf-logic at W3C > Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 7:30 PM > Subject: Re: basicmkr.owl > > After several iterations, this version > http://rhm.cdepot.net/knowledge/theory/OWL/basicmkr.owl > passed the RDF Validator. > > Dick McCullough > knowledge := man do identify od existent done; > knowledge haspart proposition list;
Received on Sunday, 18 May 2003 15:34:09 UTC