RE: A way out of the "dark"

> we have been assuming (so far) that Qnames are nothing
> but a syntactic shorthand to write down a URI
> e.g. eg:aaa is actually <http://example.org/test#aaa>
> given that @prefix eg: <http://example.org/test#> .
> so we always have URI's aren't we?
> what am I missing?

Jos, you're missing nothing, because, yes, writing Qnames or URIs
is not a relevant point in this dark triples/paradoxes context (so, yes,
use whatever of the two terminologies ;)

The point is just the simple proposal:
> > In whatever OWL language we construct, we could simply add the following
> > restriction on class expressions for the new OWL constructs:
> > class names are all Qnames, but for those defined in RDF(S) and OWL

Which means, essentially, you can't touch the "built-in's".
It's like if in a programming language, you are not allowed to redefine the
meaning of the keywords, which looks like a reasonable assumption...
(doesn't it? ;)

-M






>
> --
> Jos
>

Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 10:33:30 UTC