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

Re: LANG: A proposal for the layering problem

From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:21:05 -0500
Message-ID: <3CA4A281.D0D2EAAD@cse.lehigh.edu>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: WebOnt <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Dan Connolly wrote:
> 
> 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.

Whoops, you're right. I misread what you originally wrote. I guess we
don't agree here...

> [...]
> > 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.

Maybe so, but you can't express the semantics of disjointWith in RDF or
RDF Schema, so you don't gain a whole lot by treating it as just another
property. However, it can lead to some of the problems I've already
discussed.

Jeff
Received on Friday, 29 March 2002 12:21:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:48 GMT