Jim, Contrary to the impression you may have
got based on our current exchange, we are actually in “violent
agreement”. I am in complete concurrence to the idea of “little semantics” and
incremental ramping up of semantic sophistication. My only concern is that this “little
semantics” be characterized accurately and the value proposition should be evaluated So
far I have not seen any work in this direction. the "sameas" type information (expressed through same URI
names) is very powerful, even before you start worrying about the next levels
of semantics. [VK] This is the sort of characterization I was looking for.
So what the Semantic Web provides is the ability to explicitly specify and
exploit the “same as” and other “little
semantics” relationships. What would those other relationships be? Even more important, once the data is on the Web in RDF, it can
be INCREMENTALLY extended, by the original provider or by third parties, in
ways that do add the expressivity - something not doable when the datasources
are not Web accessible. [VK] At an intuitive level, this is fine, but what the SW
community needs to provide the world is with a proof and demonstration
that
this actually happens and what are the cost
benefit trade-offs involved. I believe this is one of the things the BIORDF
task force is investigating in the context of HCLS.. Here's another way to think about it - on the Web my documents
can point to your documents. However, my databases (or their schemas)
cannot point at elements in your databases. my thesaurus cannot point to words
in your thesaurus, etc. The Web showed us that the network effect
is unbelievably powerful, and we need to be able to use that power for data,
terminologies, ontologies and the rest. [VK] We have seen proof of the network effect in the context
of web documents. However, we are yet to see it in the context of the semantic
web. And may be a characterization of the network effect may be viewed as
a transitive closure over the “same as” relationship… So whereas,
intuitively, I agree with you, we are still to see a proof or demonstration of
these things… Cheers, ---Vipul |
Title: RE: Ontology editor + why RDF?
- RE: Ontology editor + why RDF? Kashyap, Vipul
- RE: Ontology editor + why RDF? Xiaoshu Wang
- Re: Ontology editor + why RDF? John Barkley
- Re: Ontology editor + why RDF? John Madden
- RE: Ontology editor + why RDF? Kashyap, Vipul
- RE: Ontology editor + why RDF? deWaard, Anita (ELS)
- Re: Ontology editor + why RDF? Phillip Lord
- Re: Apply Ontology Automatically (was... Internet Business Logic
- Re: Apply Ontology Automatically Phillip Lord
- Re: Ontology editor + why RDF? Tom Stambaugh
- RE: Ontology editor + why RDF? wangxiao