Re: [tm-pubsubj-comment] OWL and Published Subjects - is coordination relevant?

Bernard Vatant wrote:

> I posted last week a call for reflection to both PubSubj an WebOnt working groups
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2002Mar/0011.html
[...example with "Dolphins"]
> To come back to our working groups, I think it would be great to explore at least two
> tracks:
> 
> 1 - How OWL could integrate the notion of PSIs?
> 
> 2 - How PubSubj Recommendations could take this very issue of ontologies interoperability
> as an explicit use case?
> 
> And since our two efforts are roughly at the same stage of development (more issues than
> definitive answers), maybe they could be able to achieve recommendations consistent with
> each other, or at least explore together their common issues.
> 
> Thanks to consider (from both sides)


A technical point occurs to me leading from your post, Bernard,
and that is in regard to PSI definition documents. It seems that
a good rule for XTM documents would be to *never* use an unscoped
name in a PSI definition topic. As your example shows, such an
unscoped name would likely be incorrectly merged during some
processing of it in practice. All names should be scoped by the
domain within which the term is understood.

I have the ITIS zoological taxonomy in mind. There are a lot of
names of sports teams, automobiles, and hair products in there.

Murray

......................................................................
Murray Altheim                         <mailto:m.altheim @ open.ac.uk>
Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK

      In the evening
      The rice leaves in the garden
      Rustle in the autumn wind
      That blows through my reed hut.  -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu

Received on Wednesday, 27 March 2002 06:53:38 UTC