W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > November 2002

Re: SEM: Light review of semantics document

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 20:48:27 -0500
Message-ID: <00fc01c28924$6e8b5c10$7c674544@ne.mediaone.net>
To: "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

Jim Hendler wrote:

> >  >
> >>  Namespace definitions to RDF and to Chris' document
> >>
> >>  <rdf:RDF>
> >>     <chris:person rdf:id="Hendler" />
> >>  </rdf:RDF>
> >
> >Well what if *I* say something like:
> >
> >chris:person owl:subClassOf owl:Class .
> >
> >elsewhere, and suppose I believe this :-), now your supposedly perfect
> >document *does* use OWL terms...
> I don't understand - you cannot write that in my document - so you
> can only discover that chris:person uses owl terms by going and
> looking in the chris: document.  MY document will never be
> distinguishable technically from any other RDF document - I just want
> a piece of terminology to refer to it as something so I can say "when
> you have a document that is an RDF document but some of the documents
> it links to are OWL documents ..." in a lot less words - i.e. "When
> you have an Owl Data Document ... "

Yes but I am saying that your document is actually an OWL _Ontology_
document -- it defines a class!

>   I don't understand why this seem to be controversial - seems obvious
> to me we will need to refer to these documents a lot (i.e. my web
> page is linked to one of them, and I hope lots of other people's will
> be soon)

It should not be controversial that the nature of RDF blurs the distinction
between ontology and data just as LISP blurred the distinction between
program and data. This is the essence of the classes as intances feature.
Perhaps we ought to just say that no crisp distinction exists, and explain
this in plain English.

Received on Sunday, 10 November 2002 21:08:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:38 UTC