Re: DTTF: summary (gasp!)

> 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