W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > October 2002

RE: remembering business data and taxonomy in description

From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 17:01:43 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021015164609.025e7c10@localhost>
To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org

At 02:15 PM 10/15/2002 -0600, Champion, Mike wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Booth [mailto:dbooth@w3.org]
> > . . .
> > What you have described is formally called an "ontology":
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/Talks/0813-semweb-dbooth/slide37-0.html
>
>Uhh, Heather used the perfectly respectable and widely-understood term
>"taxonomy."  I'd suggest that the VERY LAST THING we need right now is
>another terminology dispute :-)

Goodness, I certainly wasn't trying to dispute Heather!  And I sincerely 
apologize if she or anyone else took it that way.  I just wanted to be sure 
that people knew we were talking about the same thing.  My intent was no 
different than if she had described a mechanic's tool called a "wrench" and 
I pointed out that in the UK it is called a "spanner".   Apologies again 
for any misunderstanding.

>. . .
>p.s.  Hours after the telcon last week, I understood why David was stressing
>the "two kinds of nouns and one verb" discipline.  RDF predicates consist of
>a subject-predicate-object triple ... two nouns and a verb :-)

I appreciate the humor, but of course RDF had nothing to do with it.


-- 
David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2002 17:00:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:09 GMT