Re: D7 - Which languages are better than OWL?
John,
> PM> "no W3C_language is a good_general_KRL"
> ... it would be politically more acceptable to make a
> positive statement about the W3C.
Indeed. However, as indicated formally in the following
extract of my semi-formal summary of what gpZarri wrote,
I am not the author/believer of the following statements,
gpZarri is.
"no W3C_language is a good_general_KRL"
argument:
- "no W3C_language is encouraging the
representation_and_management_of_an_n-ary_situation_as_a_block"(gpZarri)
- ("a good_general_KRL should be encouraging the
representation_and_management_of_an_n-ary_situation_as_a_block"(gpZarri);
> For example, say that the current W3C languages are useful for
> some purposes. But to provide a growth path to the future,
> it's essential to support a transition to more general KRLs for
> the future Semantic Web.
Since your statements are not objections to
"no W3C_language is a good_general_KRL" nor to the arguments
of gpZarri, all I can currently do is the following:
"no W3C_language is a good_general_KRL"
however: "some W3C_language has useful for some purposes" (jfSowa),
argument: ...
"the W3C should adopt a language like XCL"
argument: - "an XML-based language is necessary for the
transition from current W3C languages to
more general KRLs for the future Semantic Web" (jfSowa),
- "XCL is an XML-based language for Common Logic" (jfSowa),
- "Common Logic supports URIs" (jfSowa),
- "the expressivity of Common Logic is a minimal
requirement for the Semantic Web" (jfSowa);
Do you agree with this summary?
Do you know a nominal form for "however"? (Relation names should be
nouns, not adverbs; this will be one of my assertions in the future
discussion about lexical conventions for categories).
Philippe