- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 11:02:43 -0600
- To: "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
"McBride, Brian" wrote: > > In the comment property defining Ontology, it states that an > ontology is a document describing a vocabulary ... > > Is the ontology the document, or is the ontology an abstract > entity, and the document one of many possible > representations of it? There are (at least) two senses of the term 'document' in web literature: "document 1.aka resource; aka Node; See also: visit 2.aka page, frame, card 3.a bit of data in [SGML86] in [HTML95], 3.2, 4.0 " -- http://www.w3.org/Architecture/Terms#document In the comment property on Ontology, I was using document in the first sense, i.e. an "abstract entity" that may have many possible representations, rather than in sense 3, a particular byte-sequence. (hmm... "visit" really belong with sense 2, i.e. a compound document with embedded images and such.) Aside from traditional dublin-core style author/date/title metadata, I expect Ontology resources to be relevant in the case of assertion by reference. cf Assertion by reference [was: Comments on Annotated DAML...] Dan Connolly (Wed, Oct 11 2000) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2000Oct/0005.html My model is based on a sort of modal-logic approach to integrating RDF statements into the real world of communication protocols; consider a property entails: Message -> Statement for entails(m, s) read: the message m entails the statement s and about: Message -> Resource for about(m, r) read: message m is about r; e.g. when you fetch http://example.org/page1, the HTTP GET message you send, and its reply, are about http://example.org/page1 These allow me to state the axioms I have in mind for daml:imports ; namely: entails(?xReply, `daml:imports(?x, ?y)') /\ about(?xReply, ?x) /\ about(?yReply, ?y) /\ entails(?yReply, ?aStatement) => entails(?xReply, ?aStatement) where `p(s, o)' denotes reification/quoting [and is kinda hairy in ways that I haven't fully debugged]. > One might wish to make statements > about the abstract entity which are not true of the document > and statements about a document which are not true of the > abstract entity. Indeed... the document(sense3) that is the content of ?xReply above isn't (necessarily) the same thing as ?x. > These should therefore have different URI's. Right... if you want to refer to the document(sense3) that is the content of ?xReply, you may need to use a URI that's different from the one you use to refer to ?x. > In the light of that, should the fomulaic: > > <Ontology about=""> > > have an absolute URI of the ontology between the "'s as the > element is describing the ontology, not the document. I disagee; about="" is a very convenient way to refer to that-wich-this-message-is-about. > [I am in general supportive of Sergey's stylistic suggestion > that in general, URI's in about attribute values should be > absolute - it is rather irritating to cut and paste a self > contained chunk of RDF and find the semantics have changed. > Also, if a mirror service stores an exact copy of an RDF > document, to have the copy have different semantics to > the original seems unhelpful.] It's entirely feasible to mirror some content without replublishing it at a different address. For example, the W3C web site is mirrored at a dozen or so locations in IP-space (and physical space) but all the mirrors are at the same address in Web space: http://www.w3.org/ . Republishing stuff at a different address is another matter entirely, and folks shouldn't get the impression that it can be done without complications in the general case: relative URI references are a small technical matter compared to access control, metadata about copyright/licensing, digital signatures, etc. Style is a matter of taste and experience. My experience leads me to favor relative URI references. > There are a couple of minor nits in the example ontology: [I'll address these separately.] -- bind default <http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/kb> <mailto:connolly@w3.org> is mailbox of [a Person; called "Dan Connolly"; affiliation [ a Consortium; called "W3C"; homePage <http://www.w3.org> ]; homePage <http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/>; ]
Received on Wednesday, 1 November 2000 12:03:59 UTC