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

Re: 5.20, need for synonyms

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 18:58:03 -0400
To: jonathan@openhealth.org
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020726185803T.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Subject: 5.20, need for synonyms
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 16:05:31 -0400

> Let me state my position for the archives:
> If any concept, token, QName or URIreference is defined _exactly_ as in
> RDF/RDFS it is correct to use the rdf/rdfs namespace.
> If any concept/token/QName or URIreference is defined _in any small or even
> trivial_ way differently for OWL than RDF/RDFS, then this concept should be
> given a name in the OWL namespace.

Well, RDF and RDFS do not follow this position, so I don't think that we
need to.  For example, rdf:Property becomes an instance of rdfs:Class in

In fact, I don't think that this position is tenable at all, partly to do
with differences like the one mentioned just above.  For example, every
resource belongs to owl:Thing, so the meaning of every resource is changed
(perhaps) trivially in this way.

The objection that belonging to owl:Thing is not part of the definition of
a resource founders on just what is the definition of a resource.

Received on Friday, 26 July 2002 18:58:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:46 UTC