- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 16:20:52 +0000
- To: public-webont-comments@w3.org
These comments may have already been fed into the process via Jeremy Carroll so apologies if these are just repetition ... 1. The multimedia-collections use case is not completely convincing. There are domains where purely symbolic descriptions are very appropriate but others, such as this, which also demand subsymbolic descriptions. Certainly symbolic metadata annotations can be, and are being, used for multimedia data, However, this domain raises issues about representation of uncertainty, about statistical rather than logical classifications and relations, about representation of non-rigid qualifiers (e.g. the "late" in the example) and so forth - none of which I see being addressed in the requirements sections. Personally I am comfortable that Webont should not address such issues but this use case is potentially misleading. 2. Can I suggest a requirement (or objective) that ontologies can be annotated with additional meta information at a fine grain. There is a requirement already for overall ontology annotation and a more specialized "procedural attachment" objective. I'd prefer a general mechanism, as is currently possible which DAML-in-RDF, which could be applied to more than just procedural attachment. For example, I can see uses for an application annotating a class with non-logical information such as display hints or inference hints which don't affect the semantics but affect the nature and performance of the application. If you do not build on top of RDF (where it comes for free) then a similarly open-ended method of annotation or extension would be useful. 3. It is implicit in the whole document but I didn't see an explicit goal/requirement/objective that OWL should be usable to describe the ontology of terms used in RDF fact bases. I take it that this is a given (that RDF is the "Abox" for OWL's "Tbox") but a more explicit statement of the relationship between RDF and OWL might be helpful. Dave
Received on Friday, 22 March 2002 15:20:50 UTC