- From: Johannes Busse <jbusse@jbusse.de>
- Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 08:03:48 +0200
- To: Christophe Dupriez <christophe.dupriez@destin.be>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
Hi all, apropos "hitchike": ok, if Christophe points to Douglas Adams, I'd like to point to the movie Matrix 1: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Matrix : Morpheus: "Welcome to the desert... of the real" What we are talking about is the ontological relationship between the "very reality" and our concepts (our ideas) of this reality -- in terms of foaf: http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/20100809.html#term_focus : "The focus property relates a conceptualisation of something to the thing itself." additionally foaf defines: "Range: every value of this property is a *Thing*", while Thing refers to owl:Thing. and te subject of this email thread is: "linking topical and factual information" In my opinion owl:Thing is to generic here. Instead the range of foaf:focus should be something like "very thing" or "real thing" or "fact". (a) If "yes" it would also help to find a better name for foaf:focus. (b) if "no" we should clarify the conceptual relationship between skos:Concept and owl:Thing To be more explicit in the case of (b): We have to decide which *theory* (or ontology?) we use in order to compare "concept of something" (pun intended) with "thing itself": - Life in Matrix vs. Reality? - Semiotics, i.e. use terms like sign, idea, reference ? My suggestion: We should look at a ground top-level vocabulary (like "DOLCE+DnS Ultralite") and make foaf:focus (resp. skos:Concept) being a subproperty of a property (resp. a subclass of a class) which is already given there. cheers Johannes -- Dr. Johannes Busse Bahnhofstr.9, 68535 Edingen www.jbusse.de | jbusse@jbusse.de
Received on Saturday, 14 August 2010 09:01:42 UTC