OK I was not responsive to your comment - apologies. I am hearing you
say it's not ok to have a namespace that contains present-tense
properties vs one that has past-tense semantics. Why is that a problem?
It seems like a completely legitimate use of namespaces to me. (01)
On 1/23/2014 11:00 AM, John McClure wrote:
> On 1/23/2014 10:43 AM, Krzysztof Janowicz wrote:
>> Your 'is' proposal is a good example. I am not saying that you should
>> take your 'issues elsewhere' just that namespaces are not linguistic
>> expressions and that this is the reason why an 'is' namespace would most
>> likely be rejected by the community.
> I never said lingusitic I said syntactic. Please stop changing my words.
>
> On 1/23/2014 9:42 AM, John McClure wrote:
>> I am using syntactic structures to connote
>> important semantic information.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (02)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (03)
|