>Moreover, the ontology language >itself provides no mechanism for adding annotations - we are relying >on RDF (or some similar mechanism) for that. That is a possible decision for this group to take, but we are certainly able to decide to have language features relating to instances if we wish - and the charter doesn't rule that out. For example, the group could descide that "owl:sameInstance" is something we wanted to add, and that would certainly be within scope. > > >13. Section 5, "Definitional constraints on conjunctive types". It >seems strange to have this as an objective as it is just a special >case of the requirement for being able to state class >equivalence/subsumption relationships. > again, seems to me Ian is pre-guessing a solution - he may well be right, but we're not constrained for this to be implemented as a special case. -- Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) AV Williams Building, Univ of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendlerReceived on Tuesday, 26 February 2002 10:53:58 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:27 UTC