Re: layering (5.3, 5.10): Sardinia compromise?

Massimo Marchiori wrote:
>
> I missed the aforementioned conversation, alas, but notice
> that we just need to read better the wowg's archives: the different-domain
> proposal has been my point since the very beginning
> (cf. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0037.html ,
> also
> reported at a teleconf...).

Might you respond to
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0045.html ? (just
so we can try to sort out if we are all on the same page :-)
...

> Even more, for me the "same-domain" had *NEVER BEEN AN OPTION* (i.e., not
> even *thought* about imposing  a same-domain layering chain), and took me
a
> while
> to digest what Peter & Pat actually meant by their "layering is
impossible"
> argument (again, cf the above email...).
>

By "different domain" are you suggesting that OWL might provide an entirely
different semantics for a graph of e.g. N-triples, than RDF, i.e. that
triples become the _syntax_ of OWL which provides its own model theory (i.e.
semantics) ?

Jonathan

Received on Sunday, 16 June 2002 22:30:47 UTC