W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sw-meaning@w3.org > March 2004

Re: Self-descriptive assertions

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 13:28:02 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20040326.132802.10412635.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: distobj@acm.org
Cc: bparsia@isr.umd.edu, public-sw-meaning@w3.org

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Subject: Re: Self-descriptive assertions
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 12:46:46 -0500

[...]

> But is an OWL ontology any more than an RDF graph?  AFAIK, it isn't.
> So you don't need a new media type.  I fully agree with DanC's
> assessment here;
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Oct/0162.html

An OWL ontology is much, much more than an RDF graph, unless you believe in
the strongest of the various one-meaning proposals that have been bandied
about.

For example, if I ask you whether the RDF graph

	ex:foo owl:sameAs ex:bar .

entails

	ex:foo rdfs:subClassOf ex:bar .

you *should* say no, because I have only licensed you to treat this graph
as an RDF graph, not an OWL ontology.


I would thus (if I cared) agitate for a separate media type for OWL.


Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research 
Received on Friday, 26 March 2004 13:28:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:16 GMT