- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:09:32 -0500 (EST)
- To: connolly@w3.org
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> Subject: Re: on media types for OWL (5.13) Date: 30 Oct 2002 16:58:30 -0600 > On Wed, 2002-10-30 at 08:07, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: [...] > Hmm... the above example makes an interesting point in > that there's no path to "follow your nose" from the > premise to the owl spec; you could follow your nose > from the conjectured conclusion back to the owl spec, > if you were asked to prove the latter from the former. > > So even in that case, I'm satisfied with just labelling the premise > and the conclusion app/rdf. What about the following then? Is an agent that is validly reading the following OWL document <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="...the usual..."> <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://foo.ex/bar#john"> <rdf:type> <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://foo.ex/bar#Student"> </rdf:type> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF> allowed to respond that it does *not* entail <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="...the usual..." <rdf:list> <rdf:first rdf:resource="http://foo.ex/bar#john" /> <rdf:rest rdf:resource="...the usual...#nil /> </rdf:list> </rdf:RDF> [...] My belief is that there needs to be several media types to keep things like this straight. Peter F. Patel-Schneider Bell Labs Research
Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2002 18:09:42 UTC