- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 12:02:21 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
> Good summary! thanks. > > > My only quibble is with the editorial comment at the very end. > yes, well I ran out of steam at the end, so this is not entirely explained. what I would prefer is a mechanism to direct that specific predicates or perhaps namespaces (but namespaces are tricky because RDF concats namespace with localname to form URI, so it would be a URI ref -prefix- ) would be unasserted i.e. used for syntactic purposes i.e. "dark". the syntactic devices e.g. embedding an <rdf:RDF> within which everything is unasserted by default, would work except that the resulting OWL would be littered with these funny <rdf:RDF>s all over the place, so the idea of stating which predicates are "dark" in an RDF Schema -- or OWL ontology -- is more attractive. wording changes/paragraph inclusions are always welcome. Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2002 12:06:54 UTC