- From: Natasha Noy <noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 23:41:32 -0700
- To: Alan Rector <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: Brian McBride <brian.mcbride@hp.com>, swbp <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Alan, > Another go at a difficult problem that ought to be easy... > > It seems to me that a critical issue is which of two cases you are > dealing with: > > Case 1: You are using an existing ontology as a reference to > annotate, label, or otherwise carry static information for > applications which will query it at 'run time'. The applications > assume that all implications are explicit and add no new information > to the ontology. > > Case 2: You are re-using the ontology as a module of a larger > ontology which you are authoring, possibly to be used eventually as in > case 1. Indeed -- I tried to add it to the new draft. I think it is important to identify these two cases, but at the same time I don't think they affect most of these approaches all that much. Approach 2 clearly is problematic if you are dealing with Case 1, but others don't seem to alter the "natural" semantics. I don't think the issue of whether the hierarchy is classified or not per se belongs in this note. It is a separate usage issue, the one where you have a great point to make and I hope will put it into another document from the WG that this one can cross-reference. I am a big believer to address only the specific issue at stake in these types of documents and to give the reader pointers for all the other issues it touches upon. Or do you think this more detailed discussion really belongs in this note (and not another one)? Thanks, Natasha
Received on Friday, 4 June 2004 02:41:57 UTC