W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2002

Re: SUO: Re: REQUEST: survey of available ontologies, taxonomies, thesauri, lexicons?

From: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 21:33:43 +0200
Message-ID: <3CA8B617.89EFE7B9@cs.vu.nl>
To: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>
CC: Bill Andersen <andersen@ontologyworks.com>, SUO <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>, Ontoweb <seweb-list@cs.vu.nl>, W3C Web Ontology WG <www-webont-wg@w3.org>, RDF <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, protege-discussion <protege-discussion@smi.stanford.edu>, cg@cs.uah.edu
"John F. Sowa" wrote:

> My major complaint about much of the work on the semantic
> web is that people have drawn their diagrams to show that logic is built
> on top of XML and RDF.  I would turn those diagrams upside-down to show
> that a suitable logic-based methodology is necessary *before* you can
> begin to use RDF effectively.

I guess you refer to diagrams such as [1]. 
This is only meant to convey that RDF is the syntactic carrier for ontology languages and other logical formalisms (and XML is in turn the syntactic carrier for RDF). 

I don't think it was ever meant to imply that logic-based analysis of a domain would not be needed before using RDF/RDF Schema as a notation. 

The picture is only a rather matter-of-fact statement about the technical infrastructure for the Semantic Web, not a deep methodological issue. 

I would be happy if this clarification removes "your major complaint about much of the work on the semantic web". 

Frank van Harmelen.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/Talks/1206-xml2k-tbl/slide10-0.html
Received on Monday, 1 April 2002 14:30:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:35 UTC