- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 16:13:07 -0400
- To: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: <brian_mcbride@hp.com>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Pat Hayes wrote: > Let me make a concrete proposal. > > 1. There is no change at all to RDF, and the RDF core WG is relieved > of all requests to do anything about this matter. > > 2. Every OWL expression is a set of RDF triples. > > 3. OWL introduces a special class name owl:Dark (which can be an > rdfs:Class). Any assertion of the form [....] This sounds attractive. What is the catch? I am not entirely sure how to ask the following: but would this follow the 'rules' of RDF, that is, will DanC (as an example) complain that the meaning of the RDF graph of an OWL ontology and the OWL meaning won't 'clash'? Somehow this has the _effect_ of unasserted triples ... so what gives? Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 16:17:02 UTC