Re: REQDOC: ontologies as resources

>In a message expressing my concerns with the requirements document, I
>argued that it is premature to require that ontologies be resources, at
>least if by resource, we mean an RDF resource, i.e., elements of the domain
>of discourse that can be used just like any other element of the domain of
>discourse.

Wait. Saying they are in the domain of discourse doesn't (in itself) 
say that they are *exactly like* all other things in that domain. It 
just says that it is *possible* to say something about them.

>I happen to think that it is a bad idea for ontologies to be just the same
>as other objects

Well, OK, I tend to agree. They aren't just like other objects. 
Elephants arent just like galaxies either, but they can both be in 
the domain of discourse.

>because there may be unexpected consequences of this
>decision.  For example, if we have ontologies referring to other
>ontologies, making ontologies just the same a other objects gets us more
>than halfway to being able to have conditional referring, which can have
>sever computational consequences.

I don't follow this point. Can you expand on 'conditional referring' 
or point to some discussion?

>
>Moreover, the justification for have ontologies as (RDF) resources is to
>support ontology sharing, but it is certainly possible to have ontology
>sharing while still making ontologies different from other objects.

But of course, but that's not the point at issue. If they aren't in 
the domain of discourse, then we can't even mention them in order to 
say that they are different.

Pat
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes

Received on Friday, 15 February 2002 01:44:13 UTC