W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > February 2005

Fwd: RE: [OEP] OWL and Semantic interoperability $swbpd

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 09:55:45 -0500
Message-Id: <p06200757be2e833c28af@[]>
To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org

Forgot to cc this to the group... Alan/Mike - I guess in light of 
Alan's message the P.S. puzzles me even more...

>Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 17:18:40 -0500
>To: "Uschold, Michael F" <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
>From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
>Subject: RE: [OEP] OWL and Semantic interoperability  $swbpd
>>Thanks Jim for your input.
>>More concrete dicussion can take place when the note has some meat on it
>>for you and others to assess. However, I can respond to some of your
>>See [MFU] below.
>[snipping most of the message]
>>As I read and reread your comments, it seems likely that we have two
>>fairly different things in mind by 'semantic interoperability'. What do
>>YOU have in mind?  Perhaps when you think of semantic interoperability,
>>you are mainly thinking of the reuse and sharing of ontologies and
>>ontology terms using the URI/RDF basis?  Perhaps THIS is what you see as
>>being superior to all the alternatives? On that we can agree.
>>The way that OWL is inferior, is in its abilty to express mappings
>>between ontologies to that applications using different ontologies can
>>interoperate. This is what I mean by semantic interoperability.
>Well, let's start by saying this definition of "semantic 
>interopeability" goes beyond the way it is often used, which is to 
>say using semantics to link databases and/or services together.  The 
>most common use of ontologies in interoperability is mapping 
>different DBs to the same ontology, and then using that to do data 
>integration, mining, mapping, etc -- and that was one of the use 
>cases for OWL and also has been successfully demoed by a number of 
>folks (I'll let the Network Inference folks speak for themselves if 
>they want, but if you read their literature, they sure seem to like 
>OWL for this).
>  Ontology to ontology, I'd like to see some applications that use 
>rules or anythign else and do this outside the research labs -- OWL 
>is being explored for this, as are many approaches, and I haven't 
>seen a lot of compelling stuff in any system.  I'd point at one 
>exception, Fujitsu Labs of America's Task COmputing work (and yes, 
>my group was involved in some of the work) uses OWL-S for composing 
>sets of services, and uses a combination of OWL (for semantic 
>divergence) and XSLT (for syntactic divergence) when different OWL-S 
>descriptions use terms from different ontologies.  I cannot speak 
>about the productization of this stuff due to a combination of NDAs 
>and (even more so) ignorance, but it seems to work and I don't see 
>any SWRL around -- XSLT provides plenty of power for "rule based" 
>mapping (esp. reformatting), it justn't doesn't need an inference 
>rule engine to power it.
>  FWIW, in the mapping world we and others are also using N3 (not 
>just SWRL) and other languages, so I was objecting as much to the 
>naming of a specific non-standard as to the overall tone of the 
>proposed abstract.
>  -JH
>p.s. You raised an example of a mapping where you did a mathematical 
>multiply for a mapping - I don't see this in SWRL or F-logic, or 
>anything other than Prolog or other Turing complete langauge, which 
>I understood you opposed due to its undecidability - am I missing 
>At 9:45 -0800 2/7/05, Uschold, Michael F wrote:
>>] By limited, I meant it cannot support some extremely simple and
>>minor things that are critical to many real world interoperability
>>scenarios. e.g.  doing arithmetic to convert between different units
>>(e.g. feet/meters)
Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2005 14:56:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:41 UTC