- From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 09:42:47 -0500
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 11:40:54AM +0100, Antoine Isaac wrote: > >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... > > > >[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-guide-20040210/#Owl_Ontology_definition > > Don't forget that this is the definition of an "OWL ontology". I think it > is in fact quite self-referential: an "OWL ontology" is a dataset defined > with the constructs brought by OWL, and that's it :-) However the definition quoted above is not actually explicit about the properties and classes needing to be "OWL" constructs. I'm guessing there is a more formal definition in one of the other OWL specifications, but maybe not...? > But anyway, that's not important, I don't think the SW community would balk > on "controlled vocabularies" as Jeff said. > On the other end, I'd be against using "ontology" for Group 2 since, as you > put it, "ontologies" (which feature of course OWL ontologies) may include > *any kind* of individuals (using owl:Individual), which brings us too far. > Group 2 should focus only on these things which would give rise to (RDFS or > OWL) classes and properties, i.e., "RDF vocabularies". Agreed. Tom -- Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Saturday, 4 December 2010 14:43:26 UTC