- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 18:03:56 +0000
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org, Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
On February 26, Jim Hendler writes: > >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. Fair enough, but it doesn't appear in the REQDOC either as a requirement or as an objective. > >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. The point is that it seems strange to have an objective that is subsumed by a requirement. Ian > -- > 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/hendler
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2002 13:05:23 UTC