- From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 00:25:35 +0100
- To: Azamat <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>, "semantic-web@w3c.org" <semantic-web@w3c.org>
- CC: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
Thanks Azamat. On 07/07/2009 00:01, "Azamat" <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy> wrote: > HG: We have revamped a lot of the RKB and RKBExplorer infrastructure since > last > exposing it here, so you may well like to give it another visit at > http://www.rkbexplorer.com/ > > Visited and found some ontology tendered as a reference ontology, > http://www.aktors.org/ontology/. Here are the top lines: > "A very simple top-level. We define something called THING, which is the > top-level concept in the ontology. We then distinguish two basic > types of 'things': TANGIBLE-THING, something that has some physicality, and > INTANGIBLE-THING, something which has not. We use a very open definition > of being tangible: obviusly a physical object is tangible, but also a > sub-atomic particle is tangible, even if some of them are very tricky (you > do not see them) > you only see the trace they leave behind. Also a piece of software will be > considered a tangible thing, it is something that you can see on a floppy > disk. > In contrast an algorithm will be an intangible, although the file that > contains its implementation will be a tangible thing." > Something more in this line: Intangible Thing is not tangible...Tangible > Thing, something which is not intangible... Quantity is of two subclasses: > Number and Physical Quantity, etc. The ontology is not part of our project. It was developed in the AKT Project, which ended a couple of years ago. I would say there is no maintenance activity on the AKT ontologies. We just use it as one of the ones we use, partially because there was existing data defined - we just take it as read; I guess it is legacy. > Wonder is it an experimental trial or completed work? Thanks. By "it" I assume you mean the RKB and RKBExplorer. It is neither - it is intended to be a tool for practical use, and is the subject of continuing improvement, we hope. Thank you for your interest. Regards Hugh > Azamat Abdoullaev > http://standardontology.com >
Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 23:26:26 UTC