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

ISSUE NOT OPEN (was Re: MISC: Internet Media Type registration: proposed TAG finding)

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 08:14:07 -0400
Message-Id: <p0511170ab9128d11b738@[10.0.1.4]>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, WebOnt WG <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
All - the chairs have NOT opened this issue and the discussion 
threatens to get into whole sets of arguments that have been raised 
on rdf-logic and should not be recapitulated here.  Let's please hold 
off on this issue until it is OPENed as per the process for 
discussion we've agreed to.
  -Jim H




At 11:50 PM -0400 5/22/02, Dan Brickley wrote:
>On 22 May 2002, Dan Connolly wrote:
>
>>  >  I ask
>>  > that the WebOnt WG discuss whether to send a polite note back rejecting
>>  > this interpretation of our work.
>>
>>  I don't think we should.
>
>FWIW, Peter's dissatisfaction with my note (which wasn't addressed here)
>is noted.
>
>I continue to regard the WebOnt language (and the RDF 1.0 syntax, and it's
>MT, and RDFS) as a component of the wider Resource Description Framework,
>but don't propose we take time up discussing labels here.
>(<onlyhalfjoking>We used to call this effort the Platform for Internet
>Content Selection; maybe we could go back to that name if folks really
>don't like the RDF TLA?</onlyhalfjoking>)
>
>[...]
>
>>  A consumer of the above document either or does or doesn't grok
>>  DAML+OIL semantics; it can come to more of the relevant conclusions
>>  if it applies DAML+OIL axioms, but since everything is monotonic,
>>  there's no harm done if it doesn't apply those axioms.
>>
>>  This is the principle of partial understanding in action.
>>  I have tried to make this point in the past...
>>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Mar/0339.html
>>  but I'm not having much luck.
>
>How about we try to think about this issue in forward-looking rather than
>backward-looking terms?
>
>Given RDFS and WebOnt, we're looking at partial understanding in terms of
>RDFS-aware tools dealing with with WebOnt-enriched RDF Schemas (er,
>Ontologies). So how about we forget the past and look to the future?
>
>Imagine you're in the WebOnt v3.0 WG, looking back on the products of this
>group, balancing v3.0's backward compatibility with present-day
>requirements and opportunities. Presumably WebOnt v1.0 isn't the one true
>ontology language to end them all? We might expect a version 1.1 or 2.0 at
>least. Or perhaps people will take to describing their RDF Schemas and Web
>Ontology vocabularies using one of the various RDF-oriented rule
>languages. Maybe W3C will even do a REC-track spec or two for such a rule
>language. And what about datatyping? The XML Schema WG is still active,
>and might well produce refinements of the XML Schema datatyping system,
>which will at some point manifest itself in the RDF and Web Ontology
>world. The future looks busy.
>
>Partial understanding in action: people will write tools to work with the
>WebOnt 1.0 language, just as they're writing tools to work with RDF Schema
>vocabulary descriptions now. We need to think about how these new WebOnt
>tools will, or won't, be suprised by documents that draw on features
>defined in specs subsequent to WebOnt 1.0. Is a WebOnt ontology that draws
>upon some additional (webont v2, rdf-rules-1.0?) namespace still really a
>WebOnt doc? Is it an RDF Schema for that matter? (re the latter, yes, imho).
>
>
>At the instance data level, all this shouldn't matter. (Thankfully, for
>the poor end users...)
>
>A question. Or maybe even test case...
>
>Is the following XML doc 'mere RDF', or a 'WebOnt instance document'? (or
>a DAML+OIL doc). What changes in the Web might change our answers to this
>question?
>
><web:RDF xmlns:web="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
>	xmlns:wn="http://xmlns.com/wordnet/1.6/" 
>xmlns="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/">
>
>  <wn:Person>
>   <name>Dan Brickley</name>
>   <mbox web:resource="mailto:daniel.brickley@bristol.ac.uk"/>
>   <mbox web:resource="mailto:danbri@w3.org"/>
>   <homepage web:resource="http://purl.org/net/danbri/"/>
>   <dateOfBirth>1972-01-09</dateOfBirth>
>   <depiction 
>web:resource="http://rdfweb.org/people/danbri/2000/01/01/Image1.gif"/>
>  </wn:Person>
>
></web:RDF>
>
>Note that currently the RDF schema at the http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
>namespace asserts that the 'mbox' property used here is a
>daml:UnambiguousProperty. At some point it'll probably use WebOnt 1.0
>vocab instead. And eventually I'll use whatever ontology, rules and schema
>language best capture the intended meaning of the classes and properties
>in my namespace. Maybe I won't change the document you get at the
>namespace; I might send digitally signed RDF to a usenet group instead.
>But the intention should be clear: describe the vocabulary as accurately
>as possible with the machinery currently to hand.
>
>Dan
>
>
>--
>mailto:danbri@w3.org
>http://www.w3.org/People/DanBri/


-- 
Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
AV Williams Building, Univ of Maryland		  College Park, MD 20742
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Thursday, 23 May 2002 08:14:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:50 GMT