- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 04:24:49 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- CC: jonathan@openhealth.org, www-webont-wg@w3.org
I find myself in vigorous agreement with Peter here. I will add by two pennies worth about what are acceptable and unacceptable changes in meaning. Jonathan Borden wrote: > If any concept/token/QName or URIreference is defined _in > any small or even trivial_ way differently for OWL than > RDF/RDFS, then this concept should be given a name in the > OWL namespace. The RDF concept of meaning is: - shown using a model theory that exhibits entailments - intended to be monotonically augmented. A change to RDF meaning is seen when the correct entailments of a file change. A change in level (e.g. RDF to RDFS or RDFS to OWL, or RDF to datatyped RDF) is intended to add more entailments. In the extreme case, all entailments of a document are added and that document becomes a contradiction. Hence any change to the meaning that does not *stop* any rdf entailments is OK by RDF. I have argued that we should try very hard to stick to this, even if we kludge it by restricting syntactically the scope of OWL. I don't want synonyms. Jeremy
Received on Friday, 26 July 2002 23:25:13 UTC