W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > June 2004

Re: [OEP] Purpose of the note on "classes as values". [Was: Close to final draft of "classes as values" note]

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:53:35 -0500
Message-Id: <p06001f0ebcee332fd3e9@[]>
To: Natasha Noy <noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU>
Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org

>>  Another go at a difficult problem that ought to be easy...
>>  It seems to me that a critical issue is which of two cases you are 
>>dealing with:
>>  Case 1: You are using  an existing ontology as a reference to 
>>annotate, label, or otherwise carry static information for 
>>applications which will query it at 'run time'.  The applications 
>>assume that all implications are explicit and add no new 
>>information to the ontology.
>>  Case 2: You are re-using the ontology as a module of a larger 
>>ontology which you are authoring, possibly to be used eventually as 
>>in case 1.
>Indeed -- I tried to add it to the new draft. I think it is 
>important to identify these two cases, but at the same time I don't 
>think they affect most of these approaches all that much. Approach 2 
>clearly is problematic if you are dealing with Case 1, but others 
>don't seem to alter the "natural" semantics. I don't think the issue 
>of whether the hierarchy is classified or not per se belongs in this 
>note. It is a separate usage issue, the one where you have a great 
>point to make and I hope will put it into another document from the 
>WG that this one can cross-reference. I am a big believer to address 
>only the specific issue at stake in these types of documents and to 
>give the reader pointers for all the other issues it touches upon.
>Or do you think this more detailed discussion really belongs in this 
>note (and not another one)?

Actually this seems like a very general point that we could make 
which goes beyond the tricks-and-techniques style of our topics so 
far, and which we could legitimately make as a piece of best-practice 

As  a general matter of best practice, be aware that there might be 
several different possible styles that an ontology could use. So, as 
a general matter of improving interopreability, when composing a new 
ontology which uses a term from an existing ontology, *use the same 
style* as that ontology. If you can't, for other reasons, consider 
not using that term, but instead find (or invent) one which is 
defined in an ontology which uses a compatible style.

IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501			(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 10 June 2004 11:53:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:39 UTC