- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 22:53:57 -0500
- To: "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
pat hayes wrote: > > > >Chris/Pat - I think you guys misunderstood me - I believe that all > >of these things are OWL documents, but I'm concerned with a small > >matter of usage. The way I see it, there are documents which are > >clearly owl ontologies because they define terms and properties and > >the like. There are also owl documents that only use those terms > > There are also RDF and RDFS documents that use those terms. So? I > thought y'all *wanted* things to work out that way, that is supposed > to be part of the layercake, right? So that people can use these > languages together all nice and smoothly. That's why we went to all > this trouble in the model theory.... Do you have a problem with this, > now?? > > >and, in fact, there is no reason that there will be any trace of any > >OWL vocabulary in those documents. > > Well then they won't be OWL documents. They will be be, say, RDF > documents that use a vocabulary defined (yech, I hate that word) in > another document that uses OWL. > I'd like to suggest that (assuming document's which have legal RDF/XML syntax); Documents served with a media type: application/rdf+xml 1) are RDF documents 2) might be OWL documents Documents served with a media type: application/owl+xml 1) are OWL documents 2) are RDF documents That is to say: an OWL document is an RDF document which is interpreted according to the OWL semantics. Jonathan
Received on Tuesday, 19 November 2002 23:13:57 UTC