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

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

From: McBride, Brian <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 08:20:03 +0100
Message-ID: <E864E95CB35C1C46B72FEA0626A2E808031A966D@0-mail-br1.hpl.hp.com>
To: Natasha Noy <noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU>, "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
Cc: "Dickinson, Ian J" <Ian.Dickinson@hp.com>, swbp <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Natasha Noy
> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 3:31 AM
> To: McBride, Brian
> Cc: Dickinson, Ian J; swbp
> Subject: Re: Close to final draft of "classes as values" note
> 
> 
> 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.

I disagree.

Brian


 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 Thursday, 20 May 2004 03:20:44 UTC

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