- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 14:45:57 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
>From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> >Subject: Re: REQDOC: ontologies as resources >Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 01:46:32 -0500 > >> >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 > >Sure, but what does that mean? If documents are in the domain of >discourse, then ontology documents are also in the domain of discourse, but >as documents, not ontologies. A document is a sequence of Unicode >characters, Oh God. Obviously we need a glossary here. I would say that a document was ENCODED as a sequence of unicode characters, not that it WAS one. I meant the particular parsable syntactic token; a concrete thing (which can have a location, a creation time, can be copied and sent along wires) which is also an entity that has a syntax and therefore a grammatical structure. Like this particular sentence token which I am now typing on my screen, and which you will be reading a grammatically indistinguishable copy of when you read your screen. 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 14:46:07 UTC