- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 11:19:14 -0600
- To: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
>pat hayes wrote: >> >> >Here's some initial comments on the Semantics document dated Nov. 3: >> > >> >1) Sect. 2.2. The syntax needs the ability to represent documents that >> >consist soley of facts (that is, something other than ontologies). >> >> ? Can you explain what you mean by "other than ontologies" ?Do you >> mean, not in OWL? >> > >Part of this depends on what you consider OWL. From your response, I >assume that you think of OWL as just a language for defining ontologies, >and that you must use it with RDF in order to describe data No. I fail to see the distinction you are drawing between 'ontology' and 'data'. I don't know what you mean by this, or what importance it has. One can have valid OWL documents which consist of nothing but ground RDF facts. So? >(e.g., a >product catalog, a univeristy's course offerings, etc.). I tend to think >of OWL as an extension to RDF, so this data is still part of OWL, it >just has the standard RDF syntax. > >In any case, our model theory must talk about data to the same extent >that it talks about ontologies. It does. It always has done. What is the problem? Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Thursday, 7 November 2002 12:18:56 UTC