- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 09:36:57 -0400
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > I certainly don't dispute that saying the daml:Lists constraints > normatively in English would be a good thing. I was thinking that the OWL MT would have the normative definition of an owl:List. > > 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. > I agree, but that is an entirely different issue (one that I think was prematurely closed - btw) Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 10:10:04 UTC