- From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 13:10:45 -0500
- To: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>
- Cc: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 11:34:52AM -0500, Jeff Young wrote: > As an informal term, I don't think "controlled vocabulary" is that bad > from a semantic web perspective. We just have to be careful with the > definition. > > According to the OWL Web Ontology Language Guide: > > "In OWL the term ontology has been broadened to include instance data." > <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#owl_Ontology> > > In other words, the semantic web world shouldn't balk at the informal > notion of "controlled vocabulary" as long as they are represented based > on OWL (e.g. SKOS). We're getting off on a tangent a bit here, but the definition at [1] says: "An OWL ontology may include descriptions of classes, properties and their instances." It doesn't actually say "OWL classes" and "OWL properties" - and for that matter, it only says "may"! I'm curious whether formal definitions of "ontology" explicitly require OWL - or explicitly _exclude_ sets of (non-OWL) RDF properties and classes. No time to chase this one right now... Tom [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#Owl_Ontology_definition -- Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Friday, 3 December 2010 18:11:25 UTC