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

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

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 08:27:46 -0400 (EDT)
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
cc: WebOnt WG <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0205230826500.19780-100000@tux.w3.org>

I'd be happy to move this to www-rdf-logic. My apologies for any break
with process;  I saw one of my msgs to RDF Core and SW CG discussed here,
and thought simplest thing to was to reply in-thread. --dan

On Thu, 23 May 2002, Jim Hendler wrote:

> 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/
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 23 May 2002 08:27:50 GMT

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