W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > February 2002

Re: Requirements Document

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 08 Feb 2002 13:24:50 -0600
To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: heflin@cse.lehigh.edu, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1013196292.4003.42.camel@dirk>
On Fri, 2002-02-08 at 11:37, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Requirements Document
> Date: 08 Feb 2002 08:55:47 -0600
> 
> > On Thu, 2002-02-07 at 13:45, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > [...]
> > > The document uses words with technical meaning in places where the
> > > technical meaning may not be what is wanted.  In particular,  unless
> > > ``resource'' means what it means in RDF I think that it should be avoided.
> > > So
> > > 	Ontologies must be resources with their own unique identifiers.
> > > can easily be read as implying that ontologies must be objects just like
> > > regular objects.  
> > 
> > Yes, that's the requirement I agreed to. 
> 
> I am unable to find any record of the group agreeing that ontologies are to
> be resources.  Could you please provide a pointer to this?

The text in the requirements document matches what I had in
mind when we agreed on:

  "A Annotation/tagging of ontologies (some particular properties)"
 -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jan/0089.html

If something has properties, to me, it's a resource.

The meeting records aren't all that clear, and regardless,
we didn't make binding decisions. So I hope that's
plenty of going over the history of this issue;
what's relevant is whether you (and other WG folk)
like what's in the document now...

> > It seems like you
> > have something else in mind, but I can't tell what.
> 
> For the purposes of this discussion, I don't need to tell you what I have
> in mind, just that I am worried about identifying ontologies as resources,
> which carries along RDF-derived baggage.

OK, I don't need to know what you have in mind; but if you want
your worry to result in changes to the document, I would
need more information to know what changes to make.
I'm not the editor, though; maybe
the editors know more about your concern than I do.

> > > The document anticipates some technical features of OWL.  In particular, it
> > > uses URI as the term identification mechanism.
> > 
> > Again, to me, that's a straightfoward elaboration
> > of the requirement that we agreed to:
> > 
> > " A unambiguous term referencing using URIs"
> > 	-- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jan/0089.html
> 
> True.
> 
> I am now officially unagreeing to the above.

I see; I think I'll respond substantively in a separate message...



-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 8 February 2002 14:24:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:47 GMT