Re: LEAD: making an ontology about the ontology group...

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: LEAD: making an ontology about the ontology group...
> Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 11:13:58 -0600
[...]


> Not fixed.  The following isn't particularly useful
> 
>     <rdf:Description rdf:about="#vcard_list">
>         <ont:equivalentTo> vCard.Cellular, vCard.Company, vCard.Department, 
> vCard.DisplayName,



That's sort of a "remember to check into vCard" artifact; I'll
change it to rdfs:comment or something...

> There appears to be a serious editing artifact (double specification of
> personalTitle).
> 
> There are some problems with name and address, but one might be able to
> live with them.  However, if one is just trying to do names for contact
> information, then a simple CommonName/FullName representation works
> exceedingly well.



Hmm... my CommonName is "Dan" and my FullName is "Dan Connolly", if
I understand you... I'd need something more in order to sort names.

> The treatment of email is totally broken, on both technical and modelling
> grounds.  On the technical side, DAML+OIL unambiguous properties have to be
> object properties,



grumble... I guess I can use cardinality or something...
maybe I'll eventually understand/appreciate why DAML+OIL has
that restriction; it doesn't appeal to me at all.

> and thus can't have literals as their objects.  On the
> modelling side, the relationship between social entities and mailboxes is
> many-to-many, even when restricted to persons.


No, there's only one person who's authorized to read
mail sent to connolly@w3.org, and that's the case
for many mailboxes; saying X contact:mailbox Y
is saying that there's just one X that can receive
mail sent to Y.




-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Thursday, 8 November 2001 14:48:27 UTC