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

Re: SEM: Light review of semantics document

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 11:19:14 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b0fb9f04fde6b19@[65.217.30.130]>
To: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

>pat hayes wrote:
>>
>>  >Here's some initial comments on the Semantics document dated Nov. 3:
>>  >
>>  >1) Sect. 2.2. The syntax needs the ability to represent documents that
>>  >consist soley of facts (that is, something other than ontologies).
>>
>>  ? Can you explain what you mean by "other than ontologies" ?Do you
>>  mean, not in OWL?
>>
>
>Part of this depends on what you consider OWL. From your response, I
>assume that you think of OWL as just a language for defining ontologies,
>and that you must use it with RDF in order to describe data

No. I fail to see the distinction you are drawing between 'ontology' 
and 'data'. I don't know what you mean by this, or what importance it 
has. One can have valid OWL documents which consist of nothing but 
ground RDF facts. So?

>(e.g., a
>product catalog, a univeristy's course offerings, etc.). I tend to think
>of OWL as an extension to RDF, so this data is still part of OWL, it
>just has the standard RDF syntax.
>
>In any case, our model theory must talk about data to the same extent
>that it talks about ontologies.

It does. It always has done. What is the problem?

Pat


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Thursday, 7 November 2002 12:18:56 GMT

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