- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 29 Mar 2002 09:45:50 -0600
- To: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
- Cc: WebOnt <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, 2002-03-29 at 09:24, Jeff Heflin wrote: > Dan Connolly wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > To me, RDF Schema is a vocabulary of terms (e.g. subClassOf) to be used > > within RDF, i.e. within the Resource Description Framework, > > for describing resources such as properties and classes. > > > > WebOnt should be another vocabulary of terms (e.g. disjointWith) > > that can be used in the same description framework. > > We are in complete agreement on this point. It doesn't look that way to me. When I say "another vocabulary of terms that can be used in the same description framework" I mean a collection of symbols (URIs) that can be used in n-triples and/or RDF/XML 1.0 syntax. [...] > Once again, my suggestion is that data stays as RDF. Thus it can still > be combined easily in the ways you mention. However, the ontologies > themselves would not be RDF. To me, Ontologies are just more data. :Bob :brother :Joe. is no more and no less a fact (i.e. data) than. :Person ont:disjointWith :Chair. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 29 March 2002 10:45:43 UTC