Thanks Azamat
for the neat explanation below
AA 'domain of discourse' or 'universe of discourse'
has two widely practiced technical senses: [...] and [PH] No, really. Using OWL or RDF does not restrict your domain of
discourse at all. That is, it does not restrict what you can write assertions
about: it does not restrict your topics or subject-matter.
OK, agreed, thanks (perhaps I should have said W3C representation of the universe of discourse)
[PH] But the W3C is actively trying to extend this set of standard ontology
languages, and actively trying to establish links and connections between it
and other notations in use on the Web (cf, the active projects to link RDF to
HTML, including GRDDL and RDF-A). But it all takes time. If anyone has any
ideas on how to improve this situation, everyone will be delighted to hear
them.
Pointers to this list as to where to direct energies in that direction may be welcome..
cheers
PDM
aa
1. "universe or domain", the object of study, also
subject matter, content, matter, or reference class, the set of all entities to
be assumed or described, as ontological universe, mathematical universes,
physical universes, social domains or technological domains.
2. "discourse", the set of all ground terms
and constructions in some discourse, as linguistic discourse or
logical discourse, the range of quantification in mathematical logic, as
Herbrand universe or the SW ontologies.
Now, the real world is the universe (of
discourse) and subject matter of all factual sciences; the world of symbols,
signs, terms and expressions is the (universe) of discourse and subject
matter of mostly formal sciences.
There are two complementary knowledge areas with
potentially unlimited universes of discourse, in the both senses, ontology and
logic. The object of logic is the whole of discourse; namely the formal elements
and patterns and forms of discourse about everything and anything, without
reference to the real world. The universe of discourse of
ontology is reality itself with its features and aspects, which
identifies the fundamental elements and patterns and forms of all things
(Universe), as the being of everything and anything.
ph
No, really. Using OWL or RDF does not restrict your domain of
discourse at all. That is, it does not restrict what you can write assertions
about: it does not restrict your topics or subject-matter. Not even in
the slightest degree. What it does restrict you to, of course, is using OWL or
RDF syntax to say what you want to say, and that indeed is a restriction of a
sort; but not a restriction to a domain of discourse.
As to that second point: of course, any set of standards amounts to a
restriction to use those standards. I fail to see how things could be
otherwise, pretty much from the definition of "standard". (Wouldn't you have
expected that a "SW ontology editor" would want you to edit ontologies written
in a SW standard language? Why else would it be called a SW editor? There are
plenty of other ontology editors for ontologies written in other formalisms.)
But the W3C is actively trying to extend this set of standard ontology
languages, and actively trying to establish links and connections between it
and other notations in use on the Web (cf, the active projects to link RDF to
HTML, including GRDDL and RDF-A). But it all takes time. If anyone has any
ideas on how to improve this situation, everyone will be delighted to hear
them.
Pat
, as far I understand what was intended
above....
PDM
______________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01)
|