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

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

From: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 13:56:46 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200405071756.NAA16594@clue.msid.cme.nist.gov>
To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org


"McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 	        "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.
>
>Is this a question we want to take on at all?  If its advice based on
>experience of using the tools that is requested, then maybe the interest
>group is the place to ask.

Right.  SWBPD should not be providing general KR guidelines, only
those related to using SW languages.  It would be appropriate for
a WRLD TF product to describe appropriate uses of SW languages
(classes of problems for which a SW language would be an appropriate
component of a solution), although that would be a pretty large space
I should think.  It would also be quite helpful for SWBPD to produce a 
note describing the classes of reasoning tools available for RDF, RDFS, 
and OWL.  I imagine the WRLD task force description covered the former,
don't know about the latter.

-Evan
Received on Friday, 7 May 2004 13:56:53 UTC

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