- From: James Cerra <jfcst24_public@yahoo.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 08:18:53 -0700 (PDT)
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
- Cc: reto@gmuer.ch
> I use vocabulary term containing a fragment identifier, however > I'm unsure if the name of ontology itself should contain a pound > sign (like rdfs and rdf) or not (like owl). Personally, I think it should not contain a pound sign. I feel that terms in an ontology schema are parts of the document, so they should get seperated in the hash. However, the whole schema is the entire document and not part of it. I think the part of the document identified by the null fragment identifier, which is different from no fragment identifier (which identifies the whole resource). Although I may be contradicted by some specs, I feel there is truth in that assertion. The whole schema is an information resource too by definition: the essence of a specification of a conceptualization is information. And in practice (in OWL or RDFS cases), web ontology schemas are designed to be interpreted by a computer system as well as any human beings. That's the whole point of the semantic web, right? So... > According to the doc at http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl > http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl rdf:type owl:Ontology IMHO, this is the correct URIRef to use. > According to the doc at http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema > http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema# rdf:type owl:Ontology IMHO, this is a mistake. > Maybe the question is whether an ontology in an information resource > or the just the topic of an information resource. I think the topic, in this case, is the information resource. -- Jimmy Cerra https://nemo.dev.java.net ____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
Received on Monday, 27 June 2005 15:18:59 UTC