Phillip --
You wrote (below) "ability ... to be able to apply the ontology automatically in
some circumstances"
This could be the major selling point. Otherwise, the value of the ontology
depends on how well programmers read, understand, and use it. And, if they did
that well, was it their value-add, not that of the ontology?
Do you have examples in which an ontology has been applied automatically to do
a significant real world task?
(Questions intended constructively).
Thanks -- Adrian Walker
--
Internet Business Logic (R)
Executable open vocabulary English
Online at www.reengineeringllc.com
Shared use is free
Reengineering, PO Box 1412, Bristol, CT 06011-1412, USA
Phone 860 583 9677 Mobile 860 830 2085 Fax 860 314 1029
Phillip Lord wrote:
"Anita" == deWaard, Anita (ELS) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Anita> I am reminded of a saying on a Dutch proverb calendar: "If
Anita> love is the answer, could you please repeat the question?" If
Anita> semantics are the answer - what is the problem that is being
Anita> solved, in a way no other technology lets you? b
To be honest, I think that this is a recipe of despair; I don't think
that there is any one thing that SW enables you do to that could not
do in another way. It's a question of whether you can do things more
conveniently, or with more commonality than other wise; after all, XML
is just an extensible syntax and, indeed, could do exactly nothing
that SGML could not do (when it came out -- XML standards exceed SGML
ones now). XML has still been successful.
It's more a question of whether, RDF or OWL provides a combination of
things that we would not get otherwise. With OWL (DL and lite), I
rather like the ability to check my model with a reasoner, and to be
able to apply the ontology automatically in some circumstances. With
RDF, you have a convenient technology for building a hyperlinked
resource, but with added link types.
Of course, you could do the latter with straight XML (well, since RDF
is XML, you are doing so). And the former could be done without OWL,
just with a raw DL; of course, then you wouldn't get some of the
additional features of OWL (such as multi-lingual support which
derives directly from the XML).
Anita> Perhaps if we can find a way to nail this down (I also
Anita> believe the use cases of this working group, and the group as
Anita> a whole is certainly working towards that aim!) we could try
Anita> to not just preach the semantic gospel, but
Anita> actually sell it (forgive the mixed metaphor)...
Having said all that went before, I agree with this; having a set of
RDF/OWL life sciences success stories which explained why the
technology was appropriate (if not uniquely appropriate) would be a
good thing, if it has not been done before.
Cheers
Phil
