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

Re: ISSUE 5.6 - daml:imports as magic syntax

From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:46:15 -0400
Message-ID: <3D7FAB97.B2E8E60C@cse.lehigh.edu>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: WebOnt <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-09-10 at 16:38, Jeff Heflin wrote:
> > Dan Connolly wrote:
> > It is
> > essentially a knowledge hyperlink, and thus removing it is like saying
> > "can we please take the <a href> tags out of HTML."
> >
> > Although we've had this argument before in other threads in other
> > discussion groups, let me make another attempt at persuading you.
> Well, this explanation is sorta appealing, but it doesn't tell
> me enough to code it up. [perhaps you did, I see, upon
> reading more closely.]
> Can you point me to the code the implements USE-ONTOLOGY?

Sure, but I don't know how much it will help since SHOE is a different
animal from RDF. All of the SHOE code can be downloaded from:

> Can you explain how, if you took that code out, users would lose?

If I took the code out, then users wouldn't get any benefits of
ontologies at all. They wouldn't get any of the subclass/superclass
relationships, the if/then axioms, etc.

> Elsewhere in this thread (10 Sep 2002 17:48:44 -0400), you say:
> | I wasn't suggesting that ontologies should be in the domain of
> | discourse. I'd actually prefer that they weren't.
> Yikes! How do we give them titles, dates, authors, etc.
> if we can't talk about them? Maybe you mean to distinguish
> ontologies from ontology documents or something? I don't
> think I understand you.

I mean not in the OWL domain of discourse. To do the things you talk
about, they would obviously have to be in the RDF domain of discourse. 

Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2002 16:46:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:47 UTC