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

What is an OWL document? was: Re: SEM: Light review of semantics document

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 22:53:57 -0500
Message-ID: <004701c29048$74790b10$7c674544@ne.mediaone.net>
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

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.

Received on Tuesday, 19 November 2002 23:13:57 UTC

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