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 14:45:57 -0500
Message-Id: <p05101447b89314d283a9@[192.168.0.6]>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
>From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
>Subject: Re: REQDOC: ontologies as resources
>Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 01:46:32 -0500
>
>>  >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
>
>Sure, but what does that mean?  If documents are in the domain of
>discourse, then ontology documents are also in the domain of discourse, but
>as documents, not ontologies.  A document is a sequence of Unicode
>characters,

Oh God. Obviously we need a glossary here. I would say that a 
document was ENCODED as a sequence of unicode characters, not that it 
WAS one.

I meant the particular parsable syntactic token; a concrete thing 
(which can have a location, a creation time, can be copied and sent 
along wires) which is also an entity that has a syntax and therefore 
a grammatical structure. Like this particular sentence token which I 
am now typing on my screen, and which you will be reading a 
grammatically indistinguishable copy of when you read your screen.

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 14:46:07 GMT

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