- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 09:23:48 -0400
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
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. Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 09:40:03 UTC