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

Re: What is an OWL document? was: Re: SEM: Light review of semantics document

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 10:53:41 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b04ba016d345779@[10.0.100.86]>
To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

>pat hayes wrote:
>
>>  >
>>  >Chris/Pat - I think you guys misunderstood me - I believe that all
>>  >of these things are OWL documents, but I'm concerned with a small
>>  >matter of usage.  The way I see it, there are documents which are
>>  >clearly owl ontologies because they define terms and properties and
>>  >the like. There are also owl documents that only use those terms
>>
>>  There are also RDF and RDFS documents that use those terms. So? I
>>  thought y'all *wanted* things to work out that way, that is supposed
>>  to be part of the layercake, right? So that people can use these
>>  languages together all nice and smoothly. That's why we went to all
>>  this trouble in the model theory.... Do you have a problem with this,
>>  now??
>>
>>  >and, in fact, there is no reason that there will be any trace of any
>>  >OWL vocabulary in those documents.
>>
>>  Well then they won't be OWL documents. They will be be, say, RDF
>>  documents that use a vocabulary defined (yech, I hate that word) in
>>  another document that uses OWL.
>>
>
>I'd like to suggest that (assuming document's which have legal RDF/XML
>syntax);
>
>Documents served with a media type: application/rdf+xml
>
>1) are RDF documents
>2) might be OWL documents
>
>Documents served with a media type: application/owl+xml
>
>1) are OWL documents
>2) are RDF documents
>
>That is to say: an OWL document is an RDF document which is interpreted
>according to the OWL semantics.

Well, OK, but look: suppose I have a doc which contains nothing but 
RDF but the RDF uses terms that are defined in an OWL doc somewhere, 
and I want to know what media type I should say it has. Seems to me 
that with your scheme, it doesn't matter which I use. So why do we 
have the distinction? Whereas if we just say, xml means it  looks 
like XML, rdf means it looks like RDF, and owl means it looks like 
OWL, then we are giving some useful syntactic information to a parser 
which might need to know it.

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 Wednesday, 20 November 2002 11:53:48 GMT

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