Re: [tm-pubsubj] TR: Could owl:sameAs reference non-OWL resources?

[Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@garshol.priv.no>]

Hi Bernard,

* Bernard Vatant
| 
| We've envisioned several formats for PSI documentation and metadata,
| and you have yourself provided XTM files for GeoLang PSIs. XTM is
| also to make statements about the subjects, right?

Sure.
 
| 1. An ontology (whatever format) is basically a repository of
| well-identified subjects (plus statements).
| 2. In OWL, subjects (classes, properties and instances) are
| identified by URIs.
| 3. OWL provides all what is needed for expression of metadata about
| subjects, and about the ontology itself.
| 4. OWL seems here to stay, and the more I look at it, the more I
| find it a very well designed and powerful language, and that is
| bound to get a quick and widespread adoption, as far as I can hear
| from customers and partners.

All of this I agree with.

| IOW what is implied by the above-quoted provocative question is if
| OWL could supercede XTM as a Topic Map interchange format

OWL isn't a format. OWL uses the RDF data model, so you'd have to use
one of the RDF formats. So essentially what you must be proposing, if
you mean what you say, is replacing XTM with RDF/XML. Being able to
use OWL with topic map ontologies is a completely different issue.

I don't mean to shout; I just want to make sure you use the
terminology precisely when you explain what you are about to say.

| So, this is only a part of a big picture. Of course this committee
| is free not to follow that path, but I would like to have at least
| the opportunity to explain it.

Sure.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >