- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 12:24:17 -0500 (EST)
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- cc: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, pat hayes wrote: > > >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. > > Well, OK, but look: suppose I have a doc which contains nothing but > RDF but the RDF uses terms that are defined in an OWL doc somewhere, defined vs described? Does OWL have a more explicit notion of 'define' that RDF? The term might be in a 'pure' RDF Schema namespace, but which itself has subclasses and subproperties from namespaces which draw upon OWL machinery. There are lots of highly plausible corner cases light this. > and I want to know what media type I should say it has. Seems to me > that with your scheme, it doesn't matter which I use. So why do we > have the distinction? Whereas if we just say, xml means it looks > like XML, rdf means it looks like RDF, and owl means it looks like > OWL, then we are giving some useful syntactic information to a parser > which might need to know it.
Received on Wednesday, 20 November 2002 12:24:19 UTC