[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [geolang-comment] ISSUE 3: The "language" published subject
* Steve Pepper | | Like you said: Nobody *has* to use the language PSI we provide if | they don't want to... unless of course we publish the PSI set in a | formal notation (such as XTM or RDF) and make the assertion for each | subject that it is an instance of the class "language", and I don't | think we should do that. Actually, I don't think that means that people have to accept our assertion about the class of each subject. Even if they use that XTM document they will be able to use added themes and scope everything we say. If we make it part of the *definition* of each subject, on the other hand, people will have to accept it, but I don't think we should do that. -- Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net > ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC