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

media type for OWL

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 19:12:47 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b31b9e77f8163c6@[65.217.30.130]>
To: connolly@w3.org
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

Dan, a thought about that issue that came up in the telecon today. 
How about saying that the distinction encoded in the media type is 
something like that between *exhibiting* some RDF, on the one hand 
(the XML type, though I think that's a lousy way to do it: what's it 
got to do with XML in particular? If someone invents a new syntax for 
OWL, do they have to label it as XML?? Ah well, never mind. ) and 
*publishing* it on the other. Exactly what publishing means needn't 
be made achingly precise, but I have in mind that the latter is 
intended in some sense to convey the content of the RDF rather than 
simply exhibit the form. The point of this is that publishing might 
be (usually will be) asserting it, but it could be querying it, or 
using it to convey a query, or even in some cases perhaps denying it, 
if some community starts using RDF to mark up email debates, who 
knows. But the point is that what is relevant, as it were, to a 
publication is the *content* expressed by the RDF, however that 
content is established by whatever criteria are appropriate; so 
however this RDF is being used in a speech act, as it were, it is 
more than just a piece of syntax; its not just being 'exhibited'. And 
as a kind of unmarked default, ie unless there are technical reasons 
to assume the contrary, a simple publication in an RDF document at 
the top level on a webpage is taken to be an assertion that the 
proposition expressed by the RDF is true (not the RDF - too narrow - 
but the P. expressed by it, note. Which is?? Let the lawyers decide.)

This would keep the door open for things like DQL-in-DAML, or even 
for things like rules-ML-in-OWL, to be 'published' in the exactly the 
same sense (so using the same media type) but perhaps a slightly 
morphed sense of 'content' being assumed, appropriate to whatever the 
form of the stuff being published. And it gets over potential snags 
like someone complaining that the innards of a log:not are part of 
the document so must have the same media type, etc. etc.

BTW, this needs to be done not just for OWL, but for all SW content 
languages. Isnt there some way to have a 'publish' media type that 
would work for all of them? Can a document have more than one media 
type? So it could be OWL and published, or RDF and published, or 
whatever. Or is that too much to ask?

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, 31 October 2002 20:13:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:53 GMT