W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > April 2012

Re: regrets and a new spin on contexts

From: Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 05:40:33 +0100
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, W3C RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120426044033.GA3222@Thomas-Bakers-MacBook-Pro.local>
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 01:32:30PM -0400, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> > However, I do not like calling these things "semantic extensions".  Pat talks
> > about imposing additional "conditions" or "constraints" on the interpretation
> > of IRIs.  To me, "limiting" and "constraining" are the opposite of "extending".
> > As in the DC discussion ten years ago, the word "extension" hints at things
> > quite different from limiting and constraining (like coining new IRIs).  If the
> > intended scope of "semantic extensions of RDF" is the interpretation of
> > existing IRIs, could we call them something like "semantic annotations" or
> > perhaps "semantic clarifications"?
> 
> How about "ontologies"?     
> 
> I'm amused, but I'm also 100% serious.   An ontology is a set of
> constraints on the meanings of terms.   In some cases, OWL might not be
> the right language to express the ontology -- in some cases, we need 100
> pages of natural language prose.   It's still an ontology.

Interesting. I'm amused too, but the word "ontology" is widely associated with
OWL, not with less formal methods for constraining the interpretation of IRIs,
such as the 100 pages of natural language prose.  In terms of messaging,
"ontology" makes peoples' eyes glaze over and thus presents a barrier.  I don't
think it would be effective as a label for the more informal sorts of
constraints Pat wants to include.  "Informal ontologies"?  For that talk, I'd
like to be in the audience...!

Tom

-- 
Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2012 04:41:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:04 UTC