- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 11 Dec 2002 16:10:44 -0600
- To: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
On Fri, 2002-12-06 at 13:59, Jonathan Borden wrote: > > As per the discussion at last week's conference call, I propose to close > 5.13 internet media type by submitting the > > application/owl+xml media type registration currently located at: > > http://www.openhealth.org/WOWG/owl-mediatype.html Hmm... you've reduced the options from 3 (XML, RDF, OWL) to 2... I guess I don't object strongly, but it seems worthwhile, to me, to note that folks can use app/xml if they just want to ship OWL around without really asserting it. > I have changed the entailment parameter to accept a URIref which points to > something (e.g. a model theory) which says which entailments are intended to > be licensed by the author/server of the document. I still think this entailment parameter isn't worth doing. I suggest striking it, on the grounds that I gave in my message of 13Nov: "keep in mind that we'll need test cases and implementations of this entailment parameter; I'm not in a good postion to supply them." I haven't seen anybody else supply test cases or implementation experience meanwhile. > These entailment URIs > currently point to places within RDF and OWL semantics documents -- these > documents might be arranged so that more readable URIrefs can be used e.g. > > http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/#Lite > http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/#DL > http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/#Full > > > Jonathan > > http://www.jonathanborden-md.com > http://www.erieneurosurgery.com > http://www.openhealth.org -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2002 17:10:30 UTC