- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 11:48:58 +0100
- To: Aldo Gangemi <a.gangemi@istc.cnr.it>
- Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
More on the content of your message about http://..../City Aldo Gangemi wrote: > But also look at the file at http://xmlns.com/wordnet/1.6/City: City is a class > introduced with all its taxonomic branch (poor practice: if each class is > introduced with all its superclasses, the ontology results unnecessary long), I am less than convinced - for a very big, or infinite ontology, this is a *necesary* practice (good or bad) since otherwise any use of the ontology requires a huge (possibly infinite) download. I am currently working on an ontology for language tags, based on RFC 3066bis, which is infinite - I was thinking of using a similar approach to the one above to give finite views of relevant parts of the ontology, so that any use could be achieved by downloading all the URLs constructed with language tags actually present in your data. If all you want to know about is City then the City download is a good one, if you want to know about more than that, maybe you need the full download (wherever that is). Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2004 05:53:05 UTC