- From: Natasha Noy <noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 18:31:44 -0700
- To: "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
- Cc: "Dickinson, Ian J" <Ian.Dickinson@hp.com>, swbp <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Brian, That's a very interesting and important issue (and in fact, overlaps with WRLD TF, which is ok of course). It is a different focus and a somewhat different document. If you would like to use the current note as a jumping-off point to write such a document, that would make a great contribution. Natasha PS. By the way, I need to check, but I think all the OWL DL approaches in the note are indeed OWL Lite. On May 17, 2004, at 3:51 AM, McBride, Brian wrote: > >> OWL is built upon RDFS, so it is already in there. The issue is more >> terminological difference I think: RDF people say 'vocabulary' and >> OWL people say 'ontology'. Perhaps if we wrote 'RDF/OWL' more often, >> the commonality might be made more widely appreciated? > > Thanks Dan, and I'm indebted to an offlist discussion with my > colleague Ian > Dickinson which has prompted the comment I'm about to make. This does > not > mean that Ian agrees with me and I hope he'll feel free to contribute > his > views. > > I suggest it is important to bear in mind the decentralised nature of > the > web. I suggest that a central goal of the semantic web is reuse of > published information. Whilst I may publish data or an ontology with a > particular purpose in mind, and whilst I may know say, that an Owl > Full > reasoner will be used to achieve that purpose, I cannot know what > reasoners > will suit other purposes for which this information may be reused. > That is > the nature of the web. > > With that in mind, what advice would we give to Joesephine User, new > to the > semantic web and ontologies, about how to represent information which > might > naturally be represented using classes as values. What should she do > to > gain maximum reusability? > > In such circumstances we might have hoped to appeal to the principal of > minimum requirements as promoting maximal opportunity for reuse. > Unfortunately however we have a double bottomed (with difficulty I > refrain > from use of the vernacular) stack. Is RDFS or Owl Lite the minimum > requirement? > > I am suggesting that we frame the purpose of the note on which Natasha > has > done such excellent work in the context of the semantic web as a whole > rather than in how to solve some problem in OwlDL. What advice do we > give > her? Stick to the common subset of RDFS and OwlLite? > > Brian >
Received on Wednesday, 19 May 2004 22:31:11 UTC