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

(Round 2) Proposed Extensions to OWL

From: Roger L. Costello <costello@mitre.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 06:21:08 -0400
Message-ID: <3EFAC914.4D2CE0F3@mitre.org>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
CC: "Costello,Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>

Hi Folks,

I have been carefully going reviewing all of the discussions that
occurred on this topic.  (Great discussions! Thanks!)  I want to 
come to an agreement on a solution. I think that it will take
a lot more discussion, but we are making progress.

At the present, I am trying to summarize the discussions.

Below are some notes that I have jotted down as I begin to 
summarize.  You will see that I have some questions.  If you have 
answers please let me know.

Let's consider this example:

Document #1 contains this value for the length property:

   <length>
       <rdf:Description>
           <rdf:value>1.0</rdf:value>
           <units>inch</units>
       </rdf:Description>
   </length>

Document #2 contains this value for the length property:

   <length>
       <rdf:Description>
           <rdf:value>2.54</rdf:value>
           <units>centimeter</units>
       </rdf:Description>
   </length>

Observations:

1. There is a relationship between these two length properties.
Namely, their values represent the same physical quantity.

Should an ontology be concerned about the relationship of quantities?
Or, should an ontology be concerned just about the relationship of
entities?  What's an entity?

2. There is a relationship between the two anonymous
resources:

       <rdf:Description>
           <rdf:value>1.0</rdf:value>
           <units>inch</units>
       </rdf:Description>

       <rdf:Description>
           <rdf:value>2.54</rdf:value>
           <units>centimeter</units>
       </rdf:Description>

Namely, they represent the same resource.  They are both providing
information about the same resource.

Do you agree that they represent the same resource?  What are the
implications of two documents that provide information about the 
same resource?  How can a machine recognize that they represent
the same resource?  (I guess that is the original question of this
whole discussion, isn't it?)

3. The objective is not to describe algorithms, but rather to state
fundamental relationships.  Tom Passin stated it elegantly: "There are 
many procedures I could use, but just one underlying relationship."

Well, those are the thoughts, observations, questions that  I have 
for now.  I'd like to hear your thoughts, observations, questions.

/Roger
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2003 06:22:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:59 GMT