- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 30 Jan 2002 14:27:12 -0600
- To: mike Dean <mdean@bbn.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
On Tue, 2002-01-29 at 19:03, Mike Dean wrote: > Dan, > > This looks great! A few comments: > > 1) Extending your recipe for strings, can't one express > unique URI naming of objects using > > :uniqueName > a daml:UnambiguousProperty; # each uniqueName denotes 1 object > a daml:UniqueProperty. # each object has only 1 uniqueName yes; how is that different from what I wrote? > 2) For ontology management language features, I'd add that > DAML+OIL supports the use of other properties (such as > Dublin Core) with ontologies, but doesn't give them meaning. What do you mean by that? It gives them just as much meaning as any other ground fact, no? > 3) For B solution to "tagging/grouping" problem, I think > we've overloading the term "tagging". Some of us use the > term "tagging" for the use of statement IDs (e.g. > associating a statement with its source); DAML+OIL inherits > this ability from RDF, but doesn't give it meaning. We > might want to split this into 2 requirements. I thought we did split it into two requirements: Annotation/tagging of (whole) ontologies, which is an A requirement, and tagging/grouping, i.e. giving properties to parts of ontologies, which got a B. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2002 15:26:57 UTC