W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > April 2006

Re: Apply Ontology Automatically (was: Ontology editor + why RDF?)

From: Internet Business Logic <ibl@snet.net>
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 11:43:33 -0400
Message-ID: <443142A5.4060000@snet.net>
To: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
CC: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org

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) <A.dewaard@elsevier.com> 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
>
>
>  
>
Received on Monday, 3 April 2006 15:38:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:52:25 UTC