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

Re: evaluating DAML+OIL vs. WebOnt requirements

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 30 Jan 2002 17:05:59 -0600
To: mike Dean <mdean@bbn.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1012431959.18285.60.camel@dirk>
On Wed, 2002-01-30 at 15:25, Mike Dean wrote:
> > > 1) Extending your recipe for strings, can't one express
> > > unique URI naming of objects using
> > > 
> > >   :uniqueName
> > >     a daml:UnambiguousProperty;  # each uniqueName denotes 1 object
> > >     a daml:UniqueProperty.       # each object has only 1 uniqueName
> > 
> > yes; how is that different from what I wrote?
> 
> Your example used strings (DatatypeProperties).  I applied
> it to ObjectProperties (a current requirement for using
> UnambiguousProperty), which I think are more likely to be
> used for unique names.

I don't think that works; I think it relies on a unique names
assumption. "abc" is known to denote something different
from what "def" denotes, but http://example/abc might
denote the same thing as http://example/def

> > > 2) For ontology management language features, I'd add that
> > > DAML+OIL supports the use of other properties (such as
> > > Dublin Core) with ontologies, but doesn't give them meaning.
> > 
> > What do you mean by that? It gives them just as much meaning
> > as any other ground fact, no?
> 
> The ability to add any property you want is a capability
> that we can easily take for granted, but certainly wouldn't
> want to lose.
> 
> "Glorified comments" is a good description for
> daml:versionInfo; we may want to add some more such
> properties (somewhat akin to rdfs:isDefinedBy and
> rdfs:seeAlso) and/or encourage the use of Dublin Core so
> that everyone won't unnecessarily reinvent their own.

ok...

> > I thought we did split it into two requirements:
> >   Annotation/tagging of (whole) ontologies, which is an A requirement, and
> >   tagging/grouping, i.e. giving properties to parts of ontologies, which got a B.
> 
> A couple thoughts here:
> 
> 1) Although adding properties to a single object or
> statement would be covered by "part"; I think it's a
> sufficiently important case to deserve separate
> consideration.
> 
> 2) Adding properties to instances is straightforward; adding
> properties to statements (which is what I mean by tagging)
> is less clear (particularly if one wants to avoid all of the
> other baggage and bloat associated with reification).

er.. perhaps good points, but I'd rather claim victory
than take extra time for these; hope you don't mind...



-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2002 18:05:44 GMT

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