W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > April 2004

Re: [WRLD] Some few questions about the formal description of the TF

From: David Norheim <david@asemantics.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 10:13:54 +0200
Message-Id: <2E3B18A2-86D9-11D8-A5DB-000A95B2AE48@asemantics.com>
Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, SWBPD <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, NANNI Marco FTRD/DMI/SOP <marco.nanni@francetelecom.com>
To: "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>

>
> [...]
>
>> So, for me the most important thing we have to do is to
>> convince the reader that OWL is a good language and that he
>> migth uses it as much as possible. Obviously the
>> demonstration will based on some comparisons betwen the
>> languages but always, in my mind, according to the fact that
>> OWL is the most powerful one.
>
> At breakfast this morning, I used a chain saw to take the top off my 
> boiled
> egg, as it was the most powerful tool I had available.  Shame I didn't 
> have
> one of those loud pneumatic road digger thingies :)
>
> Seriously, though, the point I want to make is that there is a notion 
> of
> appropriateness of a tool to a task.  It may be that there are no 
> tasks for
> which RDFS is more appropriate that Owl, but perhaps that is something 
> to
> examine rather than assume.
>
> Brian
>

Very good point Brian. Similar arguments have proven that SOAP/WSDL is 
not the ideal tool for ALL public web services (as HTTP with simple XML 
may be most appropriate in lots of cases).

We could try to approach cases from bottom up, and try to see if we 
then find limitations in the technology for the specific task that will 
make us need to take one step higher in the "semantic cake". We then be 
able to point this out rather than jump to the most complex technology 
first.

I would like to see us describe a list of use cases where it is clear 
that the "least complex" technology is appropriate, rather than the 
most powerful. Gradually we keep on moving up the stack, when we reach 
more and more complex problems that would *require* OWL. We should also 
comparing them with other known technologies like RDBMS, XML and Web 
Services to show that the latter ones are inappropriate (if so). Also 
point out what you lose by not using the higher layers in SW.

Use cases to start from could be as easy as

1. News summaries, e.g. RDF site summary (RSS). Clearly "simple" enough 
to only use RDF + DC (hence RSS 1.0), but regardless of what we may 
think (?), also appropriate to use XML (RSS 2.0). But what problems 
arises with use of XML instead of RDF? (e.g. Unique identification). 
What do you lose by not using OWL?

2. Personal information, e.g. vCard, FOAF... What makes RDF appropriate 
here? Why is FOAF problems simple enough for RDF(S), and when do we 
need to introduce OWL?

...and then move to more and more complex.

- David
Received on Monday, 5 April 2004 04:29:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:30:53 UTC