W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2003

Re: White Paper - "Using OWL to Avoid Syntactic Rigor Mortis"

From: Baoshi Yan <baoshi@ISI.EDU>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 11:21:03 -0700
Message-ID: <006a01c3050e$1aaa5f40$af800980@tiger>
To: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@mitre.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

It seems the white paper makes a remise that different users would follow the same OWL ontolgy, and they
are only allowed to use the different terminologies *predefined* in the ontology. How can you foresee all different kinds
of terminologies that could possibly be used?
The camera ontology used in the white paper is more like a "merged" ontology of two smaller, different but alignable ontologies,
certainly interoperability could be achieved here.
I think it's more compelling if you can show that people can freely use any terminologies they like, and an OWL ontology can be
defined to align those.


-----ginal Message -----
From: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@mitre.org>
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Cc: "Costello,Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 8:39 AM
Subject: ANN: White Paper - "Using OWL to Avoid Syntactic Rigor Mortis"

> Hi Folks,
> I have written a white paper[1] titled:
>    "Using OWL to Avoid Syntactic Rigor Mortis"
> This paper summarizes the discussion on using a logical model (i.e., an
> OWL Ontology) to enable many different physical expressions (i.e., many
> different forms of instance documents).
> Comments welcome.  /Roger
> [1] http://www.xfront.com/avoiding-syntactic-rigor-mortis.html
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2003 14:21:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:45 UTC