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

Re: [WRLD ?] : do we have to consider such problems ?

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 10:22:05 -0500
Message-Id: <p06001f11bcc007d36355@[]>
To: "NANNI Marco FTRD/DMI/SOP" <marco.nanni@francetelecom.com>
Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
>Here is a  precise question i have recently 
>received and for wich it could be great to have 
>some pointers to guidelines
>where people could find some responses. But is 
>it in the scope of the SWBP WG (WRLD) ?
>The question  :
>         "For my project I need some semantic 
>features and to reason on ontologies
>         so i have taken into consideration the following tools :
>         FaCT, RACER, jena, JTP, Pellet, Jess, 
>Clips, Jadex, tuprolog, Algernon.
>         Could you give me some advices ?"
>Oups!! It's really a strange tools salad, isn't it ?
>So, do you think that what we can say could be :

I think the only appropriate answer to a question 
like this is to ask for more information about 
what the questioner is trying to do. Until you 
know more, its impossible to give rational 
advice. Maybe they would be best off without 
using Sweb technology at all.

Pat Hayes

>         1) If your project has something to deal 
>with the WEB the best solution is to use 
>RDFS/OWL (and optionaly here are the criteria to 
>decide if you are in a SW context : Š.) .
>In this case the first criteria will be to see 
>if one reasoner support such a language. This 
>response implicitly means that
>         RDFS/OWL are such powerful languages 
>that every SWApp can be built on top of them. 
>But are we sure of this ?
>         If not (we are still in a SW context but 
>we need more expressiveness) :  what kind of 
>advice in the choice of the good language can we 
>give (choose what you want or try to mix 
>different languages ?) and WHERE people can find 
>SWBP although OWL is not used (or in other word 
>what are the parts of the SWBP notes that you 
>can reuse even if you don't use RFDS/OWL)
>         2) If not, can we say or not : to use 
>RDFS/OWL is still the best solution and here are 
>the parts of our notes
>         that you can reuse even if you are not in a SWBP context.
>         Can we say that if you are not in a SWBP 
>context you can build ontologies with other 
>languages reason with no OWL/RDFS reasoner and 
>that you can't/won't find any help in the SWBP 
>group notes. ? In this case do we have to give 
>people the good pointers to the good SNonWebBP 
>guidelines ?
>Best regards
>Marco NANNI

IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501			(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 6 May 2004 11:22:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:38 UTC