Thank you, that's all extremely helpful.
I agree, BTW, with the openness approach completely, and don't support
the notion of, as you say, 'annointed ones'. However, patient
confidentiality is an important exception.
On 10 July 2014 22:23, John McClure jmccl...@hypergrove.com wrote:
Peter,
Peter,
Nothing I know of in SMW prevents defining annotation properties as a
subclass of category:Property. Though RDF's notion that so-called
annotation properties (with domains /Class/ /Property/ or /Ontology/)
determines your level of interchangeability with other RDF-compliant
semantic
I'm trying to think about this in a more semantic way.
Surely, part of the point of semantics is to allow rules to be governed by them.
If I could create a property, say '[[page_visibility::group_X]]' then
it would make sense for the wiki to understand, from that, that the
rule for this property
Hi Peter,
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Peter Brooks peter.bro...@kchclinics.com
wrote:
I'm trying to think about this in a more semantic way.
Surely, part of the point of semantics is to allow rules to be governed by
them.
If I could create a property, say
