W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > April 2002

Re: REQUEST: survey of available ontologies...

From: Eric Miller <em@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 13:43:34 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020402132056.02a35738@localhost>
To: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>, SUO <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org, Ontoweb <seweb-list@cs.vu.nl>, protege-discussion <protege-discussion@smi.stanford.edu>, cg@cs.uah.edu
At 10:32 PM 4/1/2002 -0500, John F. Sowa wrote:

>Frank van Harmelen wrote:
>
> > I guess you refer to diagrams such as [1].
>
> > This is only meant to convey that RDF is the syntactic carrier for
> > ontology languages and other logical formalisms (and XML is in turn
> > the syntactic carrier for RDF).
>
> > I don't think it was ever meant to imply that logic-based analysis
> > of a domain would not be needed before using RDF/RDF Schema as a
> > notation.
>
> > The picture is only a rather matter-of-fact statement about the
> > technical infrastructure for the Semantic Web, not a deep
> > methodological issue.
>
>I agree that is one interpretation.  But I also recall a talk by
>Eric Miller, in which he commented that the layers get less well
>defined as you go up.  That annoys people like me who believe
>that classical FOL is the best defined of all notations on earth.

John,

My comments on the less well defined aspects of the layer diagram (logic, 
trust, etc.) were specifically in the context of enabling standards, 
technologies and supporting infrastructure.  These comments were in 
absolutely no way intended to imply that FOL is not well defined.  I am 
terribly sorry for any confusion my statements may have caused and will 
strive for establishing a better shared context in future talks.

-- 
eric miller                              http://www.w3.org/people/em/
semantic web activity lead               mailto:em@w3.org
w3c world wide web consortium            tel:1.614.763.1100
200 technology square, ne43-350          fax:1.208.330.5213
cambridge, ma 02139 usa 
Received on Tuesday, 2 April 2002 14:10:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:42 GMT