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

comment: Re: [ALL,VM] Vocabulary Management Task Force Description - discussion draft

From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 18:53:31 +0200
Message-ID: <40CB350B.4060209@virgilio.it>
To: Thomas Baker <thomas.baker@izb.fraunhofer.de>
Cc: SW Best Practices <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

[[
The goal of this Task Force is to describe best practice for declaring 
and managing terms and term sets (vocabularies) for use in a Semantic 
Web environment.
]]

One of the first questions a vocabulary author is likely to ask when 
considering how to declare a term is "rdfs:Class or owl:Class", or to 
put it another way, "shall I use OWL Full (RDF+S), DL or Lite?"
 
I was wondering whether this question will be in scope for [VM], and if 
not, how on earth will you avoid it?

I realise 'cleaning up the mess' has been put on hold as far as [WRLD] 
is concerned [1], but there is no need for anyone to commit to advice 
pointing towards any (sub-)language exclusively. However there should be 
information available on the implications of any choice based on known 
facts. The mess won't clean itself up, quite the opposite if people are 
implementing without at least some knowledge of the relative 
strengths/merits of the alternatives.

Cheers,
Danny.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004May/0057.html

PS. Jim said "if anyone wants to argue me out of the above by 
volunteering to actually edit a document" - rather than let it be swept 
under the carpet, worst case I'll volunteer myself.

-- 

Raw
http://dannyayers.com
Received on Saturday, 12 June 2004 12:54:41 UTC

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