RE: remembering business data and taxonomy in description

"Champion, Mike" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.web.services.ws-arch
Message-ID <[email protected]>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Booth [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 3:56 PM
> To: Heather Kreger; [email protected]
> 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.
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.