W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > March 2002

AW: LANG: collect idiom for inclusion in the language

From: Raphael Volz <rvo@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 11:44:41 +0100
To: "Frank van Harmelen" <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
Cc: "Webont" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DMECLAFLIOFJEFFIAJPCOELOCJAA.rvo@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>

you called for inclusion, which is one of the basic techniques needed
for modularity and daml:imports does exactly provide a simple means
for modularity in DAML+OIL.

Thus the content refers to your call for
> * collect idiom for inclusion in the language

Although we do point out that the tagging requirement comes into play
regarding inclusion, if one want's to be able to maintain the information
on "who said what", which is mandatory concerning ownership / mercantibility
of information.

The section on naming, referring etc. collects existing W3C technology
which could also do the job, e.g. several alternatives for inclusion exist
for XML-based

Best regards,


-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
Von: www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-webont-wg-request@w3.org]Im Auftrag von Frank van Harmelen
Gesendet: Sonntag, 10. Marz 2002 12:03
An: Webont
Betreff: Re: LANG: collect idiom for inclusion in the language

Raphael Volz wrote:
> The Harmelen/Horrocks doc
> (http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/spool/OWL-first-sketch.html) states that
> * collect idiom for inclusion in the language
>       This should be based on
>           o experience with DAML+OIL
>           o our use-cases
>           o experience with earlier ontology/KR-languages
> is a next step. We elaborated this issue in our submission to
> the Semantic Web workshop to WWW11:
> http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/rvo/modular.pdf


I'm somewhat confused by this. I looked at your paper. It's interesting
stuff, but if I understand it correctly, it's main concern is with
modularity, and corresponding issues like naming, referring, importing, etc.
As such, I don't see how this contributes to frame-based idiom for OWL.

Your paper seems more relevant to the other "next step to take" from our
first sketch:

> deal with other requirements/objectives
>      The above focusses mostly on the ontological expressiveness of the
>      and not really at requirements like tagging, importing ontologies,

Can you correct me if I'm wrong?

Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2002 05:45:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:28 UTC