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

Re: REQDOC: ontologies as resources

From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 22:37:48 +0100
Message-ID: <3C6ED12C.A35A76ED@cs.vu.nl>
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Peter,

Just to add my voice to the chorus:
It seems to me essential that we can refer to classes, properties, and entire ontologies. 
(that they are in the domain of discourse).

It's hard to analyse the reasons behind the success of the Web, but surely the properties of its address space are part of it. It would be very strange indeed to take ontologies out of this space, to say that ontologies, classes, properties are unlike any other thing on the Web, and they cannot be referred to.

Think of how annoying it is that XML Schema definitions cannot be addressed by URI's. And now you're proposing we pull the same trick on others as they have pulled on us?

You claim that including ontologies,classes,properties in the domain of discource causes semantic paradoxes in combination with a logic of the power of DAML+OIL. Pat has taken issue with this, but I would go so far as to say that even if "ontologies as resources" plus "a powerful logic" causes semantic paradoxes, then I would rather compomise on the latter, and not on the former. 

If that means that we have to drop "pervasive classes" (aka class-expressions or anonymous classes), so be it (no tear shed over them anyway by most people).
If it means we have to drop all notions of complement, so be it (and yes, I realise how widespread this effect would be). Even that would imho be better then to have ontologies, classes and properties taken out of the domain of discourse on the web in general, and in ontologies in particular. 

Frank.
   ----
Received on Friday, 15 February 2002 16:41:07 GMT

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