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 <>
>>  given that @prefix eg: <> .
>>  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? ;)

OK, I think I get the idea. In outline, I agree this might be a good 
way to go. I like the idea that if OWL takes enough syntactic care, 
RDF doesnt need to do anything. Whether the Qnames trick is exactly 
the right way to do it is a different question, I guess...

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax

Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 14:33:33 UTC