- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:16:39 -0400
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
hmmm... do we already have (somewhere): <owl:AnnotationProperty rdf:about"&rdf;comment" /> ? Jonathan > > > I had understood that we did not have comments in owl.rdf because of logical > worries of some members of the group ... (i.e. that the rdfs:comment fields > are not normatively true). > > This would also hold for a rdfs:seeAlso or a dc:source > > I am neutral. > > It would be possible to use an XML comment without these problems. > > Jeremy > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: www-webont-wg-request@w3.org > > [mailto:www-webont-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Dan Connolly > > Sent: 18 July 2003 19:35 > > To: www-webont-wg@w3.org > > Subject: helping folks read the OWL schema > > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > In case somebody finds an OWL document > > and follows the namespace pointer to get > > clues about the terms, > > could you please add a pointer to the OWL > > specs from the OWL schema? use rdfs:seeAlso > > or dc:source or some such. > > > > Also, In order to make it > > http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl > > more readable, I suggest adding > > a stylesheet link: > > > > <?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.w3.org/2002/06/rdfs2html.xsl" > > type="application/xml"?> > > > > For some examples of how this works, see > > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/email > > http://www.w3.org/2002/01/bookmark > > http://www.w3.org/2001/02pd/rec54 > > > > -- > > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 21 July 2003 09:18:10 UTC