- From: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
- Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 13:56:46 -0400 (EDT)
- 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