> I might suggest that these rules be added to the SPIN vocabulary > document, unless they exist elsewhere already, with perhaps an > example of using an instantiated Argument for a constraint.
Jeff (and others), I just wrote two more blog entries to help clarify SPIN functions [1] and templates [2]. It certainly still does not cover the aspects you are wrestling with but hopefully clarifies the underlying ideas a bit. The second article [2] also contains some bold statements at the end, which I would be interested to get feedback on from anyone. In a nutshell, my observation is that an approach such as SPIN can be used to define new (domain-specific) ontology modeling languages. My claim is that this capability may be an alternative way of unleashing the Semantic Web's full potential. While languages like OWL provide a hard- coded choice of modeling constructs, executable meta-languages like SPIN templates let the users extend the languages and thus let the modeling languages evolve driven by use cases (and not primarily by theoretical considerations like DL). Maybe a bold statement, but I'd like to hear opinions from the TBC users field before we widen up the visibility of SPIN to the larger Semantic Web community and W3C. Regards, Holger [1] Understanding SPIN Functions [2] Understanding SPIN Templates --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Composer Users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-composer-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
