using OWL to formalize web technologies motivates uniform treatment of datatype values (5.1)

Re my action 3.2 ISSUES 5.1 & 5.19
ACTION: Dan to elaborate his use cases/requirements on this. 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Sep/0104.html

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.1-Uniform-treatment-of-literal-data-values

I hope/plan to formalize all sorts of stuff with RDF,
and I hope the OWL vocabulary will help.
In particular, retrospective formalization of
web technologies (and maybe even formalization
during/before deployment!).

Stuff like:

[[
:Response u:subClassOf :Message;
  u:isDefinedBy
<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec5.html#sec6>;
  daml:disjointFrom :Request.

]]
 -- http://www.w3.org/2001/03swell/http.n3

Now that example doesn't say anything about
datatypes, but there are others, like formalizing
the charmod spec, that do...

[[

{ v:ccs a :CodedCharacterSet }
   l:means
{ v:ccs a daml:UniqueProperty;
   u:domain [ a :Repertoire ];
   u:range dt:nonNegativeInteger;
  }.
]]
 -- http://www.w3.org/2001/03swell/charmod.n3


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Thursday, 19 September 2002 10:39:09 UTC