- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 01:46:32 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
>From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> >Subject: Re: REQDOC: ontologies as resources >Date: 14 Feb 2002 15:20:32 -0600 > >> On Thu, 2002-02-14 at 12:43, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> > 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. >> >> Hmm... it seems to me: >> >> 1. Ontologies are documents >> 2. documents are in the domain of discourse >> e.g. we can use the dublin core title >> property ala >> <http://www.w3.org/> dc:title "W3C". >> hence >> >> 3. Ontologies are in the domain of discourse >> >> I'm interested to know which part of that argument you'd disagree with. > >I would, instead say that > > 1. Ontologies can be encoded as documents (or collections of documents). > 2. Documents are in the domain of discourse. OK, the way to resolve this is to define 'ontology'. Like Dan, I was assuming that the use of 'ontology' in this thread was intended to mean that an ontology was a document. So let's say that ontology *documents* can be in the domain of discourse, would that be OK with you? 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 01:46:31 UTC