From: Phillip L. <phi...@ne...> - 2009-04-23 12:49:33
|
Barry Smith <phi...@bu...> writes: > At 04:41 PM 4/22/2009, you wrote: >>Dear Colleagues, >> >>The <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL>OWL Working Group has published new >>Working Drafts for OWL 2, a language for building Semantic Web ontologies. > > The documentation of > >>OWL 2 (a compatible extension of OWL 1) consists of 13 documents (7 >>technical, 4 instructional, and 2 group Notes). Barry W3C produces recommendation and specifications. OWL therefore is a specification, not the technology that implements it. Adding in "The documentation of" to this sentance is, therefore, an example of Stove's worst argument in the world; we can never see OWL as it really is, just it's documentation. >> This is a "Last Call" for the >>technical materials and is an opportunity for the community to >>confirm that these documents satisfy requirements for > > serving as a specification of > >>an ontology language. Ditto (almost). >>In addition, the <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL>OWL Working Group and >>the <http://www.w3.org/2005/rules>Rule Interchance Format (RIF) >>Working Group have jointly published a Last Call Working Draft of >>rdf:text: A Datatype for Internationalized Text. > > > can't be right, I aver > a datatype for text comprehending multiple languages ? A datatype for describing unambiguously the usage of multiple different languages. The general experience is that understanding what language a piece of text uses is valuable when trying to understand it. Phil |