[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Beyond Ontologies

• To: "'Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)'" <clbullar@i...>
• Subject: RE: Beyond Ontologies
• From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@n...>
• Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:52:34 -0400
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE03F9ED8F@h...>

Hi Len

Len said:
Do you need to resolve the difference or denote the difference?  

Didier replies:
Beginning by denoting the difference in an efficient and elegant way would
be fine. At least, this would become explicit.

Didier said:
>Problem 1: 
>----------
>How to get access to the ontology behind an RDF description? Where is it
>located where in an RDF fragment? How do I get the link to fetch such
>definition?

Len replied:
Access is easy is the URI resolves to the location of the ontology.  If 
not, you search.  If you search, you are back to the Shannon dilemma of 
having sufficient or insufficient means to choose.

Didier replies:
Precisely.

Len said:
Why do topics in mail lists tend over time to not 
reflect the actual contents of the particular emails?  Think 
about the debate some months back on the meaning of 'resource' 
in web architecture.  Even something that dominating as a 
keyword has a very nebulous meaning.  That is something 
of what interests me because it demonstrates that no matter how 
complete the ontology or how high the frequency of the term, 
the humans will drift away from it and topical based tracking will get
noisy.  

Didier replies:
Very good point.

Cheers
Didier PH Martin
http://didier-martin.com

• References:
  • RE: Beyond Ontologies
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: fundamental facets - inquiry from the XML SchemaWo rking Group
• Next by Date: RE: fundamental facets - inquiry from the XMLSchemaWorking Group
• Previous by thread: RE: Beyond Ontologies
• Next by thread: RE: Beyond Ontologies
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread