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

Re: Close to final draft of "classes as values" note

From: Natasha Noy <noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 18:31:44 -0700
Message-Id: <741D67E4-A9FD-11D8-A8F8-000A958B5C28@smi.stanford.edu>
Cc: "Dickinson, Ian J" <Ian.Dickinson@hp.com>, swbp <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
To: "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>

Brian,

That's a very interesting and important issue (and in fact, overlaps 
with WRLD TF, which is ok of course). It is a different focus and a 
somewhat different document. If you would like to use the current note 
as a jumping-off point to write such a document,  that would make a 
great contribution.

Natasha

PS. By the way, I need to check, but I think all the OWL DL approaches 
in the note are indeed OWL Lite.


On May 17, 2004, at 3:51 AM, McBride, Brian wrote:

>
>> OWL is built upon RDFS, so it is already in there. The issue is more
>> terminological difference I think: RDF people say 'vocabulary' and
>> OWL people say 'ontology'. Perhaps if we wrote 'RDF/OWL' more often,
>> the commonality might be made more widely appreciated?
>
> Thanks Dan, and I'm indebted to an offlist discussion with my 
> colleague Ian
> Dickinson which has prompted the comment I'm about to make.  This does 
> not
> mean that Ian agrees with me and I hope he'll feel free to contribute 
> his
> views.
>
> I suggest it is important to bear in mind the decentralised nature of 
> the
> web.  I suggest that a central goal of the semantic web is reuse of
> published information.  Whilst I may publish data or an ontology with a
> particular purpose in mind, and whilst I may know say, that  an Owl 
> Full
> reasoner will be used to achieve that purpose, I cannot know what 
> reasoners
> will suit other purposes for which this information may be reused.  
> That is
> the nature of the web.
>
> With that in mind, what advice would we give to Joesephine User, new 
> to the
> semantic web and ontologies, about how to represent information which 
> might
> naturally be represented using classes as values.  What should she do 
> to
> gain maximum reusability?
>
> In such circumstances we might have hoped to appeal to the principal of
> minimum requirements as promoting maximal opportunity for reuse.
> Unfortunately however we have a double bottomed (with difficulty I 
> refrain
> from use of the vernacular) stack.  Is RDFS or Owl Lite the minimum
> requirement?
>
> I am suggesting that we frame the purpose of the note on which Natasha 
> has
> done such excellent work in the context of the semantic web as a whole
> rather than in how to solve some problem in OwlDL.  What advice do we 
> give
> her?  Stick to the common subset of RDFS and OwlLite?
>
> Brian
>
Received on Wednesday, 19 May 2004 22:31:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:38 UTC