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

Re: ANN: (Revised) OWL-Quick-Intro

From: Roger L. Costello <costello@mitre.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 08:11:33 -0400
Message-ID: <3EA53175.14581AE5@mitre.org>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
CC: "Costello,Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>

Thanks Dan.  You make excellent points.  I will revise slide002.

I believe that 75-300mm zoom means that the lens has a continuous range
of focal-lengths from 75mm to 300mm (i.e., not discrete values).  /Roger


Dan Brickley wrote:
> 
> One quick review comment:
> 
> (jumping straight to the nitpicking!)
> 
> re http://www.xfront.com/owl-quick-intro/sld002.htm
> 
> Slide 2 is a little inaccurate in it's first bullet, in that you ascribe
> to OWL characteristics that belong to the broader RDF approach. Specifically,
> RDF is concerned with the instance level and with logical relations, OWL
> provides supporting machinery for making richer generalisations, eg.
> criteria for class membership, relationships amongst classes etc. It's a
> bit confusing to describe OWL solely as 'an XML vocabulary' since it doesn't
> really work in standalone fashion; it's part of the broader framework we
> began with the RDF syntax, graph data model and schema language, and which
> we may continue with work on rules, query etc etc.
> 
> Perhaps:
> 
> (thrown to the mailing list for discussion, shredding etc :)
> 
>   * OWL is an RDF/XML vocabulary for describing the kinds of categories
>   and logical relationships used in RDF/XML data exchange on the Web.
> 
>   * OWL extends the Resource Description Framework by providing some
>   formally-defined mechanisms for stating generalisations on the Web.
> 
>   - A collection of definitions for a domain is called an "Ontology"
> 
>  ...
> 
> This costs you an extra bullet point and acronym, but perhaps things could be
> compacted. I think introducing OWL as if it sat directly atop XML without
> RDF being acknowledged as a named architectural component is an approach
> worth considering, as is the approach of calling all of this stuff 'RDF'.
> Currently the specs use 'RDF' for the basic graph approach and syntax, and
> 'OWL' for the Ontology layer. It's probably best if OWL and RDF intros
> followed the specs in this, although I welcome discussion on
> www-rdf-interest as to whether this acronym soup could be better
> presented to users...
> 
> Another technical question re slide 20:
> http://www.xfront.com/owl-quick-intro/sld020.htm re "a camera with a
> 75-300mm zoom lens", is that supposed to indicate a discrete value, or do
> zoom lenses take values such as 75mm, 200mm etc?
> 
> Something of an aside that I might announce properly when more polished,
> but which relates somewhat to your device-description use case, I spent
> some time today working with some UAProf / CC/PP device descriptions in RDF,
> working notes on which can be found at
> http://esw.w3.org/topic/UAProfIndex in the ESW wiki. I harvested device
> descriptions from http://w3development.de/rdf/uaprof_repository/ and loaded
> them into an RDF store, trying queries such as
> [[
>   SELECT ?model, ?vendor, ?size, ?doescolor, ?doesimages, ?doestextin, ?hwp,
>     WHERE
>       (prf::Model ?hwp ?model)
>       (prf::Vendor ?hwp ?vendor)
>       (prf::ScreenSize ?hwp ?size)
>       (prf::ColorCapable ?hwp ?doescolor)
>       (prf::ImageCapable ?hwp ?doesimages)
>       (prf::TextInputCapable ?hwp ?doestextin)
>    USING
>       prf for http://www.wapforum.org/profiles/UAPROF/ccppschema-20010430#
> ]]
> 
> ...this is more for mobile phones than cameras, but I suspect
> http://www.w3.org/TR/di-princ/ and nearby might be of interest. After I
> built an aggregation of these descriptions the first thought I had was
> that with a bit more additional metadata they'd be quite good for
> building an online store, eg. 'find me something with such'n'so
> capabilities, color, screensize etc of type s:CameraPhone that works in
> the UK and costs less that 200ukp...
> 
> Dan
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2003 08:11:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:58 GMT