- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 18:51:44 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
- cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
On Thu, 23 May 2002, Drew McDermott wrote: > > [Tim Berners-Lee] > You are (unlike in english) bound to use a term according to its > creator's definition. > > What definition? > > [Jim Hendler] > ... we can figure out some way to "import" only the cyc#dog facts or > otherwise say when you use a URI from an ontology it only "commits" > to some localized stuff (perhaps only the exact subgraph you point > to) > > What subgraph? > > If someone can provide a natural definition of "the chunk of an > ontology implied by a reference to a subset of its nodes," then I will > listen to alternatives to the idea that you import ontologies as > wholes. Otherwise, as far as I can see, it's the only game in town. Yeah, this is tricky. FWIW, I've rigged the namespace http://xmlns.com/wordnet/1.6/ to return chunks of the wordnet noun hierarchy projected into RDF classes. deferencing http://xmlns.com/wordnet/1.6/Tree or .../Car or .../Person gets a fragment of the larger (much larger) ontology. Don't look too closely, the generated markup has bugs, but the scenario should at least be reasonably clear. I don't claim this provides a 'natural definition', but it does seem more useful than having the entire multi-megabyte wordnet RDF thing be downloadable at the schema namespace URI. Dan
Received on Thursday, 23 May 2002 18:51:44 UTC