- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 08 Feb 2002 08:55:47 -0600
- To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: heflin@cse.lehigh.edu, www-webont-wg@w3.org
On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 13:45, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: [...] > The document uses words with technical meaning in places where the > technical meaning may not be what is wanted. In particular, unless > ``resource'' means what it means in RDF I think that it should be avoided. > So > Ontologies must be resources with their own unique identifiers. > can easily be read as implying that ontologies must be objects just like > regular objects. Yes, that's the requirement I agreed to. It seems like you have something else in mind, but I can't tell what. > The document anticipates some technical features of OWL. In particular, it > uses URI as the term identification mechanism. Again, to me, that's a straightfoward elaboration of the requirement that we agreed to: " A unambiguous term referencing using URIs" -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jan/0089.html > This brings up the URI vs > QName discussion. Does it? Perhaps you mean to bring up the URI vs QName discussion, but I don't see how the requirements document does. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 8 February 2002 09:55:38 UTC