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

Re: 5.20, need for synonyms

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 19:20:08 -0400
Message-ID: <004601c234fb$013d5eb0$0201a8c0@ne.mediaone.net>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> 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.

Wow! I'd never have guessed I read such a quote from you :-)

For example, rdf:Property becomes an instance of rdfs:Class in
> RDFS.

I've not seen a good explanation for why one is in "rdf" and the other in
"rdfs" ... I'd not like to propogate mistakes.

>
> 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.

Perhaps that is a subtly different issue.

Is the meaning of <rdf:Resource> changed when OWL asserts:

rdf:Resource rdfs:subClassOf owl:Thing .

?

Perhaps we are dealing with an inherently non-monotonic system....

In any case do you intend that:

A:
ex:foo rdf:type rdfs:Class

entails

ex:foo rdf:type owl:Class

B: would it be acceptable to replace all occurances of the token "owl:Class"
with "rdfs:Class"?

C: Would it be possible to refer anyone seeking a definition of an OWL Class
to the RDFS documentation?
?
>
> 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.
>

Just so. When encountering a QName, one ought be able to dereference the
namespace URI and retrieve a document into which one can find a definition
by using the QName local-name as an identifier e.g.

http://example.org/ns#foo

=>

<html>
...
<div id="foo">
<h3>foo</h3>
<p>The <code>foo</code> ...

so is there any reason for someone to look into OWL documentation to see how
a "Class" is being defined? If so => owl:Class

Jonathan
Received on Friday, 26 July 2002 19:35:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:51 GMT