Re: [VM] Scoping Draft with questions to TF members $swbpd

On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 12:44:36PM -0700, Uschold, Michael F wrote:
> As I understand it, your point is that OWL should be used
> "out of the box" to represent a thesaurus language directly --
> rather than using OWL first to represent some ad-hoc language
> of thesaurus relations and then, in turn, using that ad-hoc
> language to represent the thesaurus.
> 
> [MFU] NO NO!  I'm remaining agnoistic. The matter needs looking into.
> There may be benefits either way. Or there may be clear preferred
> choice. 

Mike,

Have I correctly understood that you mean to say:

    There are two alternative ways one might use OWL to
    express a thesaurus: One could use native OWL constructs to
    represent thesaurus relations.  Or one could use OWL first
    to represent a language of thesaurus relations and then use
    that relation language to represent the thesaurus itself.

If so, I'm thinking the VM Note might state the issue, present
a few arguments each way, and point off to any available
sources of emerging solutions.  Does that sound reasonable?

Tom

-- 
Dr. Thomas Baker                        Thomas.Baker@izb.fraunhofer.de
Institutszentrum Schloss Birlinghoven         mobile +49-160-9664-2129
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft                          work +49-30-8109-9027
53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany                    fax +49-2241-144-2352
Personal email: thbaker79@alumni.amherst.edu

Received on Friday, 10 September 2004 08:09:36 UTC