- From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 14:15:29 -0600
- To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: David Booth [mailto:dbooth@w3.org] > Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 3:56 PM > To: Heather Kreger; www-ws-arch@w3.org > Subject: Re: remembering business data and taxonomy in description > > > > Heather, > > What you have described is formally called an "ontology": > http://www.w3.org/2002/Talks/0813-semweb-dbooth/slide37-0.html Uhh, Heather used the perfectly respectable and widely-understood term "taxonomy." I'd suggest that the VERY LAST THING we need right now is another terminology dispute :-) OTOH, if someone were to demonstrate how an OWL formalization of anything that we are scratching our heads over would help clarify matters, I would be most appreciative. p.s. Hours after the telcon last week, I understood why David was stressing the "two kinds of nouns and one verb" discipline. RDF predicates consist of a subject-predicate-object triple ... two nouns and a verb :-) If there are any intellectual tools we can use to make sense out of the Choreography Chaos, I'm all for them.
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2002 16:16:13 UTC