- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 12:49:00 -0400
- To: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Oops, slipped and send this only to Peter - I meant it for the list. >Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 22:12:04 -0400 >To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> >From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu> >Subject: LANG: Structure extra-log data (was Re: Lang: owl:ontolgy) >Cc: >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > >> >>So far, I haven't seen an example that needs structured data in the >>extra-logical portion. > >I am separating this to specifically reply to this issue > >The notion of extra-logical can be a flat set of assertions or it >could be an entire structure - why do I think we need the latter? >Consider that we have two main choices - we can try to come up with >a set of all possible keywords and thus list them - i.e. we can say >"to generate a version use" owl:version, to say what >internationalization we need say "owl:international" etc. etc. This >would mean we define a closed set, and anyone wanting to use >anything else, tough. My choice is that we have some other sort of >thing like owl:Tag which is a way we can let people create their own >tag sets and we can know that those are tags (and therefore can be >ignored by a reasoner) - and thus we are less limiting. We also >don't have to worry about these things in the model theory - in >fact, I would be willing to declare owl:Tag to be rdf:Dark if that >is needed > -JH -- Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 240-731-3822 (Cell) http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Sunday, 15 September 2002 12:49:46 UTC