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

RE: LANG: owl:ontology

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 18 Sep 2002 12:10:28 -0500
To: "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com>
Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, Christopher Welty <welty@us.ibm.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1032369029.2991.4106.camel@dirk>

On Wed, 2002-09-18 at 11:10, Smith, Michael K wrote:
> 2. Use okont:Oklahoma, with a okont: namespace declaration, but no imports.
> This does permit inconsistencies to arise, but that's life in a distributed,
> web-based world.
> Possibility 2 seems simplest.

This is my current position too.

>  It enables another party to import both
> TX-Ont and OK-Ont when they need to and reason about them without having to
> jump through the hoops in 1.  AND, they don't get the complete geography of
> Siberia clogging up their system as an inevitable consequence.

By the way...

> So she has linked her stuff into CYC in some sense, but it clear to 
> me that I must be able to read her ontology and use it without having 
> to bring in the entirety of the HUGE cyc graph.

The cyc ontology is huge?

Even cwm, which is really pretty slow, can read it in
(and index it and ...) in under a minute.

HEAD http://opencyc.sourceforge.net/daml/cyc.daml
Content-Length: 2436919

Huge is the DMOZ ontology. Bigger by two orders of magnitude...
no, more: these files are compressed.

HEAD http://dmoz.org/rdf/structure.rdf.u8.gz
Content-Length: 38222493

HEAD http://dmoz.org/rdf/content.rdf.u8.gz
Content-Length: 213639614

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 18 September 2002 13:10:28 UTC

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