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@[]>
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?


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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:49 UTC