Re: concern about the definition of ontology in the ontology document

I love to add Veronique's sentence to our ontology definition. Wonsuk,
please do this.

Thanks Veronique.

Daniel

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 8:53 PM, Veronique Malaise <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I think that readers of the ontology document
> http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-1.0/mediaont-1.0.html
> might have some troubles making the link between the (very correct)
> definition of what an ontology is, in section 2, and the proposal of the
> group (a list of properties defined in prose, not in a formal language). The
> text of the ontology document is copied below, followed by a line I propose
> to add to make the link clearer. What do you think?
>
> Best regards,
> Véronique
>
> "An ontology is a formal, explicit specification of a shared,
> machine-readable vocabulary and meanings, in the form of various entities
> and relationships between them, to describe knowledge about the contents of
> one or more related subject domains throughout the life cycle of its
> existence. These entities and relationships are used to represent knowledge
> in the set of related subject domains. Formal refers to the fact that the
> ontology should be representable in a formal grammar. Explicit means that
> the entities and relationships used, and the constraints on their use, are
> precisely and unambiguously defined in a declarative language suitable for
> knowledge representation. Shared means that all users of an ontology will
> represent a concept using the same or equivalent set of entities and
> relationships. Subject domain refers to the content of the universe of
> discourse being represented by the ontology"
>
> I propose to add something like:
> "In this recommendation, the vocabulary in question is the list of core
> properties (relationships) defined in the ma namespace, and the
> machine-readable format is not specified here: the recommendation provides a
> simple text description and definition of the relationships. An
> implementation of the vocabulary in RDF [1] has been developed in the MAWG
> RDF? task force [2]. Implementations in different formats are nevertheless
> allowed.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/RDF/
> [2]ref to the URL of the document of the modeling task force
>



-- 
Soohong Daniel Park
http://www.soohongp.com