Re: regrets and a new spin on contexts

On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 05:40 +0100, Thomas Baker wrote:
> 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...!

Sure, I know, the barn door has been open a long time, and "ontology"
was never the best horse anyway.    (You know, I wanted to give my 3rd
kid the middle name "Ontology", but her mom wouldn't let me.  That's why
it's nice to have two parents.)

     -- Sandro


> Tom
>

Received on Thursday, 26 April 2012 16:21:35 UTC