W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > May 2010

RE: concern about the definition of ontology in the ontology document

From: 이원석 <wslee@etri.re.kr>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 21:27:07 +0900
Message-ID: <B4EAD1122C31304099A5CDEA5447210F01E16EC3@email2>
To: <johns@postech.ac.kr>
Cc: "Veronique Malaise" <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>, <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Hi. John.

My concern is that mentioning of MAWG RDF task force is not appropriate for the specification ;)

What do you thing?


Best regards,



From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Strassner John Charles
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 9:20 PM
To: Veronique Malaise; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: Re: concern about the definition of ontology in the ontology document


I like Veronique's suggestion!


--- Original Message ---
>From : "Veronique Malaise"<vmalaise@few.vu.nl>
To : <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Date : 2010/05/18 Tuesday PM 8:53:43
Subject : concern about the definition of ontology in the ontology document

Dear all, 

I think that readers of the ontology document 
might have some troubles making the link between the (very correct) 
definition of what an ontology is, in section 2, and the proposal of 
the group (a list of properties defined in prose, not in a formal 
language). The text of the ontology document is copied below, followed 
by a line I propose to add to make the link clearer. What do you think? 

Best regards, 

"An ontology is a formal, explicit specification of a shared, machine- 
readable vocabulary and meanings, in the form of various entities and 
relationships between them, to describe knowledge about the contents 
of one or more related subject domains throughout the life cycle of 
its existence. These entities and relationships are used to represent 
knowledge in the set of related subject domains. Formal refers to the 
fact that the ontology should be representable in a formal grammar. 
Explicit means that the entities and relationships used, and the 
constraints on their use, are precisely and unambiguously defined in a 
declarative language suitable for knowledge representation. Shared 
means that all users of an ontology will represent a concept using the 
same or equivalent set of entities and relationships. Subject domain 
refers to the content of the universe of discourse being represented 
by the ontology" 

I propose to add something like: 
"In this recommendation, the vocabulary in question is the list of 
core properties (relationships) defined in the ma namespace, and the 
machine-readable format is not specified here: the recommendation 
provides a simple text description and definition of the 
relationships. An implementation of the vocabulary in RDF [1] has been 
developed in the MAWG RDF? task force [2]. Implementations in 
different formats are nevertheless allowed. 

[1] http://www.w3.org/RDF/ 
[2]ref to the URL of the document of the modeling task force 

Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2010 12:27:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:38 UTC