- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 22:17:06 -0400
- To: "Massimo Marchiori" <massimo@w3.org>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
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