- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 09:29:15 -0500 (EST)
- To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
- Cc: horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Hmm. Why shouldn't that go at the beginning of the RDFS-Compatible Model-Theoretic Semantics section? It appears to me that OWL/DL, when written in N-triples, is also an RDF semantic extension. Also, I'm confused as to the distinction between a collection of N-triples and an RDF graph. It appears to me that the former is better specified than the latter and thus should be used in preference to it. peter From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> Subject: editorial tweak to OWL semantics doc Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 11:35:01 -0600 > > Peter, could you somewhere add a sentence to the effect that > OWL/RDF-full is an RDF semantic extension, with a link to > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#DefSemanticExtension > > Thanks. > > Pat > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > IHMC (850)434 8903 home > 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office > Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax > FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell > phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes > s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Monday, 16 December 2002 09:29:55 UTC