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

Re: REQDOC: ontologies as resources

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 01:46:32 -0500
Message-Id: <p05101437b8925ed71a4d@[192.168.0.6]>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
>From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
>Subject: Re: REQDOC: ontologies as resources
>Date: 14 Feb 2002 15:20:32 -0600
>
>>  On Thu, 2002-02-14 at 12:43, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>  > In a message expressing my concerns with the requirements document, I
>>  > argued that it is premature to require that ontologies be resources, at
>>  > least if by resource, we mean an RDF resource, i.e., elements of 
>>the domain
>>  > of discourse that can be used just like any other element of the domain of
>>  > discourse.
>>
>>  Hmm... it seems to me:
>>
>>    1. Ontologies are documents
>>    2. documents are in the domain of discourse
>>	e.g. we can use the dublin core title
>>	property ala
>>	<http://www.w3.org/> dc:title "W3C".
>>  hence
>>
>>    3. Ontologies are in the domain of discourse
>>
>>  I'm interested to know which part of that argument you'd disagree with.
>
>I would, instead say that
>
>    1. Ontologies can be encoded as documents (or collections of documents).
>    2. Documents are in the domain of discourse.

OK, the way to resolve this is to define 'ontology'. Like Dan, I was 
assuming that the use of 'ontology' in this thread was intended to 
mean that an ontology was a document. So let's say that ontology 
*documents* can be in the domain of discourse, would that be OK with 
you?

Pat

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Friday, 15 February 2002 01:46:31 GMT

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