W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rww@w3.org > November 2017

'Upper' ontologies

From: Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:27:32 -0300
Message-ID: <CAOLUXBtuQz-7aHZ7qg5wrERbWsm1_bUFDc9XaCvb4RSoEDtwxA@mail.gmail.com>
To: W3C Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>, DBpedia <Dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net>, public-rww <public-rww@w3.org>, pragmaticweb@lists.spline.inf.fu-berlin.de
Thinking it up a little, it seems 'upper ontologies' should be dynamic
(semantic) by nature. please read the last paragraphs of this document:

https://github.com/CognescentBI/BISemantics/blob/master/
Document.pdf?raw=true

If we need 'upper ontologies' why not stay with relational databases and
views / queries, for example, without needing rigid schemas again. Even OOP
provides us yet the concept of alignment to a class hierarchy.

Obviously this is only a SW 'hobbyist' opinion,

Best,
Sebastián Samaruga
---
http://exampledotorg.blogspot.com.ar


Received on Monday, 20 November 2017 13:27:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 20 November 2017 13:28:00 UTC