W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > May 2001

RE: What do the ontologists want?

From: Ron Daniel <rdaniel@interwoven.com>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 08:38:54 -0700
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EMEKICCGFEKJFGKMFLEPGEJMCIAA.rdaniel@interwoven.com>
I can't speak for the ontologists, since I am not one.
But I can speak for my company's use of references to
elements in controlled vocabularies. We will have
lots of statements such as
  <dc:subject rdf:resource="http://example.org/NAICS/1234"/>
which is a reference to a (hypothetical) node in the
NAICS industry sector classification system.

We need to be able to tell certain things about these
statements, such as whether a human has reviewed them,
or whether the code was explicitly added or implicitly
added because it was a broader term of an explicitly
added code.

One way of accomplishing those needs would be through
reification, although the current reification approach seems
overly cumbersome. Perhaps others can suggest other ways
of fulfilling those requirements.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Peter F.
> Patel-Schneider
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 7:43 AM
> To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
> Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org; w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: What do the ontologists want?
> As one of the ontologists, I have quite a number of concerns with RDF,
> which I have mentioned several times.  I think, however, that Jonathan
> Borden did a great summary of what I want, namely:
> 	[...] strip out all the stuff from RDF that no one agrees on (such
> 	as reification). Start with a simple but rock solid
> foundation, and
> 	add concepts in only as absolutely necessary.
> I would also add that I want a firm meaning for everything in
> RDF, and that
> includes things like bags and alternatives, if they stay in.  (I am of the
> strong belief that bags and alternative do not have any reasonable meaning
> provided by RDF.)
> Peter Patel-Schneider
> From: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
> Subject: What do the ontologists want?
> Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 22:59:56 +0100
> >
> > Pat,
> >
> > Since http://www.daml.org/listarchive/joint-committee/ is public
> > and since I'm reading them from time to time, I came across
> > http://www.daml.org/listarchive/joint-committee/0387.html
> > In there, I found (among other comments)
> >
> >    [[[
> >    It might be salutary and useful if the RDFCore were to spend some
> >    time listening to what the ontologists want, instead of telling them
> >    what they can have.
> >    ]]]
> >
> > Since I am a member of the RDFCore WG I'm more than glad to listen
> > to the ontologists. So what do the ontologists want?
> >
> > --
> > Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
> >
Received on Monday, 14 May 2001 11:54:15 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:35:48 EDT