- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:33:23 -0500
- To: "Massimo Marchiori" <massimo@w3.org>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
> > 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? ;) 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... Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 14:33:33 UTC