Re: ISSUE-95: Proposed simplification and clean up of template mechanism from Arthur Ryman on 2015-11-12 (public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org from November 2015)

From: Arthur Ryman <arthur.ryman@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:24:12 -0500
To: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>
Cc: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CAApBiOmRL69xMKqfw3_4K1cbjiQgfO6koyUcX18cD_iBx6k93w@mail.gmail.com>

Irene,

I am referring to OWL DL. The partitioning of things into classes,
properties, and individuals allows you to express description logics
in OWL. This is a restricted style of modelling which is simpler to
understand and makes certain computations more tractable.

-- Arthur

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com> wrote:
> I may have mentioned this before, but in case I didn¹t, I do not believe
> it is correct to say that the idea behind OWL is not to allow meta-classes
> and to have classes, properties and individuals to be disjoint.
>
> Irene Polikoff
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11/11/15, 11:24 PM, "Arthur Ryman" <arthur.ryman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I feel that people have an easier time understanding models in which
>>meta-classes are absent. This is the idea behind OWL and description
>>logic in which things are either classes, properties, or individuals.
>
>

Received on Thursday, 12 November 2015 19:24:40 UTC