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

RE: (Round 2) Proposed Extensions to OWL

From: Jon Hanna <jon@spin.ie>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:41:38 +0100
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NDBBLCBLIMDOPKMOPHLHAEMKFEAA.jon@spin.ie>

> What that relationship is we are trying to characterize.  The
> characterization of that relationship may ultimately involve a
> conversion expression. Perhaps the conversion expression, as you say, is
> better placed outside an ontology.
>
> I agree with you that the focus should not be on *conversion*, but
> rather on "what is the relationship".
>
> Do you have any thoughts on how to characterize the relationship of the
> above two anonymous resources?  /Roger

Haven't thought about this much, but something which said they had a
conversion relationship, optionally pointing to the details expressed in the
(non-OWL) convesion application.

If we can understand both OWL and the conversion application then we get all
the information we want.

If we understand OWL and that there are such things as convertable objects,
but know no more about them, then good.

If we understand OWL and a different conversion application to the one used,
then we at least know that we may be able to obtain the necessary
information elsewhere.

If we only understand OWL then we just know there is some sort of
relationship.

That seems like the best we can hope for in each case.

It also seems analogous to the way several successful internet technologies
work, e.g. HTML has a way of saying "image goes here" but relies on other
technologies to actually encode, transmit and render the image. So maybe OWL
could benefit from being able to say "conversion goes here".
Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 09:40:14 GMT

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