- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 14:35:03 +0100
- To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jonathan@openhealth.org] > Sent: 25 April 2002 14:24 > To: Jeremy Carroll; www-webont-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: DTTF: List Ontology test case > > > Jeremy > > > > Ths test case is meant to capture that intent. > > If daml:Lists are dark, then this sort of ontology has little formal > > meaning. > > > > I believe that Pat's entire point, is that having something 'dark' to RDF > would free the OWL MT to provide a formal meaning, and since the > lists are > defined using OWL, that would indeed be the case. Certainly a > construct that > is dark to both RDF and OWL would have no meaning (although perhaps > something like DAML Rules, or N3 etc. would be free to define meaning for > those constructs etc.). To me, this seems like a proper layering/language > extension mechanism. > I certainly don't dispute that saying the daml:Lists constraints normatively in English would be a good thing. It's just I find it an odd exception if we cannot use OWL to say things that it is clearly capable of saying about other things, when we are trying to build a description of itself, such as daml:first being a UniqueProperty. i.e. my position is having normatively bootstrapped in English, that OWL is then capable of describing some aspects of itself. Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 09:35:08 UTC