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

RE: Guide: draft of Oct 31

From: Smith, Michael K <michael.smith@eds.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 09:53:50 -0600
Message-ID: <B8E84F4D9F65D411803500508BE32214119821BA@USPLM207>
To: Mike Dean <mdean@bbn.com>
Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

Mike

> 1) The owl namespace should be http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl

Thanks. Done.

> 2) Remove .owl from the !ENTITY declarations.  This allows
  use of content negotiation based on MIME types.

My only problem will be explaining content negotiation based on MIME
types.  Given our recent discussions, I now doubt that I understand
this as well as I thought.  I pretty much get it for files.

But does it work for resources? E.g.
http://www.example.org/wine#RedWine      vs
http://www.example.org/wine.owl#RedWine.

Does it generalize?
So that we would delete the .owl suffix from all of the following?

  <!ENTITY vin "http://www.example.org/wine.owl#" >
  xmlns:vin ="http://www.example.org/wine.owl#"
  <owl:Ontology rdf:about="http://www.example.org/wine.owl">

> 3) Several of us regret not providing examples of instances
> (content) separate from ontologies in the DAML+OIL examples.

Sounds like an excellent idea. I would like to postpone it until
the next version.

> 4) I think the synonym owl:hasClassAs declarations (e.g.
> food:Red owl:sameClassAs vin:Red) set a bad example.

As PFPS noted, a bunch of those decls were typos that should have
been sameIndividualAs.  The same criticism holds, of course.  When I
talk about sameClasssAs, I actually suggest that the example I use is
bogus and would be better done by using a straight reference.

- Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Dean [mailto:mdean@bbn.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 5:20 PM
To: Smith, Michael K
Cc: webont
Subject: Re: Guide: draft of Oct 31 


> I should have include the wine and food ontology files, for
> those of you who are curious.  They are attached.

Thanks for sending these out.  Here are few quick comments:

1) The owl namespace should be http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl

2) Remove .owl from the !ENTITY declarations.  This allows
use of content negotiation based on MIME types.

3) Several of us regret not providing examples of instances
(content) separate from ontologies in the DAML+OIL examples.
If this were really deployed, I'd expect some authority to
publish the wine ontology, each vineyard or distributor to
publish its products as instances using this ontology, and
each restaurant to link to these instances as part of its
menu.  I'd suggest the following

  rename wine.owl to wine-ont.owl

  rename food.owl to food-ont.owl

  move each Winery and its associated instances from
  wine.owl into a separate file (or just do this for a
  couple and then put the rest in other-wines.owl)

  create chez-deb.owl containing a wine list and/or menu for
  a notional restaurant

4) I think the synonym owl:hasClassAs declarations (e.g.
food:Red owl:sameClassAs vin:Red) set a bad example (we just
removed such constructs from OWL itself).  food.owl should
just reference vin:Red directly.  Maybe we could have
dennys:Beverage sameClassAs food:PotableLiquid instead?

Thanks!

	Mike
Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 10:54:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:55 GMT