Pat and David, (01)
I agree with your technical distinctions. And they are part of the
reason why the word 'type' is more appropriate than 'class' for
specifying an ontology. If it's a good ontology (which most authors
would hope for), it's likely to be used in many applications. (02)
A type is expected to have different members in different contexts.
But a class is a set that is specified by a type (represented
by a monadic predicate). If you use the ontology in different
applications, the type would be the same, but the set would probably
be different. (03)
Unfortunately, OWL is stuck with the word class. Therefore,
you need to add qualifiers that distinguish the context. (04)
But given the rapid adoption rate of Schema.org, I expect
Schema.org terminology to become the de facto standard. (05)
Recommendation: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. (06)
John (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|