- From: Mike Dean <mdean@bbn.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 18:19:37 -0500
- To: "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com>
- cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
> I should have include the wine and food ontology files, for > those of you who are curious. They are attached. Thanks for sending these out. Here are few quick comments: 1) The owl namespace should be http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl 2) Remove .owl from the !ENTITY declarations. This allows use of content negotiation based on MIME types. 3) Several of us regret not providing examples of instances (content) separate from ontologies in the DAML+OIL examples. If this were really deployed, I'd expect some authority to publish the wine ontology, each vineyard or distributor to publish its products as instances using this ontology, and each restaurant to link to these instances as part of its menu. I'd suggest the following rename wine.owl to wine-ont.owl rename food.owl to food-ont.owl move each Winery and its associated instances from wine.owl into a separate file (or just do this for a couple and then put the rest in other-wines.owl) create chez-deb.owl containing a wine list and/or menu for a notional restaurant 4) I think the synonym owl:hasClassAs declarations (e.g. food:Red owl:sameClassAs vin:Red) set a bad example (we just removed such constructs from OWL itself). food.owl should just reference vin:Red directly. Maybe we could have dennys:Beverage sameClassAs food:PotableLiquid instead? Thanks! Mike
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 18:20:08 UTC