ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] The tools are not the problem (yet)

To: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: John McClure <jmcclure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 12:19:20 -0800
Message-id: <52E17948.8060008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
There is no written ontological committment for the meaning of a 
namespace that I can find. Yes syntactically it is a URL. But I sure see 
difference between is:about and was:about, and do certainly expect 
different semantics between these. Just as I would for my:diet and 
your:diet, as I would for chevy:auto and ford:auto. So the namespace is 
not in any way irrelevant as a pointer to its meaning, as much as any 
name or any part of name, is irrelevant to the meaning of that so 
identified, which I gather is the point you're wanting to say.    (01)

On 1/23/2014 11:21 AM, Krzysztof Janowicz wrote:
> I think we may be misunderstanding each other. What I was trying to say
> was that the namespace should not carry any meaning of the (to be
> defined) predicates. The rdf(s) namespace is just a syntactic shortcut
> for an URL. In your example of is:about and is:of, is would be part of
> the predicate as it would contribute to its meaning.
>
> Best,
> Krzysztof
>
> On 01/23/2014 11:18 AM, John McClure wrote:
>> OK I was not responsive to your comment - apologies. I am hearing you
>> say it's not ok to have a namespace that contains present-tense
>> properties vs one that has past-tense semantics. Why is that a problem?
>> It seems like a completely legitimate use of namespaces to me.
>>
>> On 1/23/2014 11:00 AM, John McClure wrote:
>>> On 1/23/2014 10:43 AM, Krzysztof Janowicz wrote:
>>>> Your 'is' proposal is a good example. I am not saying that you should
>>>> take your 'issues elsewhere' just that namespaces are not linguistic
>>>> expressions and that this is the reason why an 'is' namespace would most
>>>> likely be rejected by the community.
>>> I never said lingusitic I said syntactic. Please stop changing my words.
>>>
>>> On 1/23/2014 9:42 AM, John McClure wrote:
>>>> I am using syntactic structures to connote
>>>> important semantic information.
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
>>> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
>>> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/
>>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
>>> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
>> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
>> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/
>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
>> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>>
>    (02)


_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/   
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014  
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/     (03)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>