- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 18:25:56 -0500
- To: "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
>Well now that I have slept on my flame I have a concrete suggestion. > >MOTIVIATION > >There is a desire to > >1. indicate that a set of class, property, and individual definitions >are part of an ontology using a natural scoping mechanism (even if >this is an extra-logical relationship), In order to make sense of this we have to say what counts as an ontology and what counts as a 'part'. I suggest that much of the confusion arises from different assumptions being made about what these answers are/should be. I would also suggest that we agree that since OWL is an extension of RDF, that the appropriate answer would be that an ontology is an RDF graph (set of RDF triples) and that 'part' means 'subset'. Not all RDF graphs are OWL ontologies, but all OWL ontologies are RDF graphs. Note, this is not the same as assuming that 'part' means anything meaningful about XML sub-expressions, and I suggest that there is no need why it should. > >2. provide a strictly syntactic explanation for imports (at least I >would like to see this), I would like to NOT have 'imports' defined this way. I think this would be a disaster, and would make imports effectively unusable by a fair proportion (say half) of the potential users. One could however observe that the entailments notion of imports (see my previous message to Peter) can be reliably achieved by a syntactic merge of the RDF graphs, which is a kind of syntactic account. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2002 19:25:58 UTC