- From: Reto Bachmann-Gmür <reto@gmuer.ch>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 09:15:10 +0200
- To: James Cerra <jfcst24_public@yahoo.com>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
Am Montag, den 27.06.2005, 08:18 -0700 schrieb James Cerra: ... > > 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... Through some rdf-documents computer systems can get some information on vocabulary terms, the document itself is an information resource, the terms themselves aren't. Similarly as a foaf-file is an information resource but the described person isn't. I think the question is how vocabulary/ontology is defined, is it defined as a document describing some terms (an information resource) or rather as a set of terms, in which case I'd find it hard to understand how a set of non-information resources can be an information resource. I found the following: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#OWLGlossary says: > Ontology Document > a Web document that contains an ontology, generally indicated > by the presence of an owl:Ontology element in the document > Ontology > (1) collection of information, generally including information > about classes and properties > (2) the information contained in an ontology document The distinction between "Ontology Document" and "Ontology" leads to the assumptions that an ontology is not a document, the definition of Ontology as collection of information makes me think it is. If I understand Tim Bray correctly on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jul/0377.html he uses an XML namespace as example for a resource that is not an information resource. Cheers, reto
Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2005 07:15:23 UTC