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

RE: [OEP] OWL and Semantic interoperability

From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 17:04:47 +0100
To: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <GOEIKOOAMJONEFCANOKCMEMLFIAA.bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>

Chris Welty wrote :

| There are a plethora of systems that are more expressive than OWL.
| Mentioning one, or two simply begs the question: "Why didn't you mention <my favorite KR
| To avoid this question, simply avoid *mentioning* things that are not W3C standards -
| we have a responsibility to cover W3C standards.  We have no responsibility to cover
anything else.

I'm not sure I agree completeley with this position. Critical questions for people likely
to adopt SW technologies are : "How do we migrate our systems?" or "How does my system fit
in the picture?" "How are SW tools address our K-issues better than other K-tools?" etc.
Seems to me, for example that what has be done by SKOS folks, trying to bridge the gap
with the librarian world, is really the way to go. We have the responsibility to look at
what is happening next door, at the legacy of KR, KOS, K-Unameit systems and make concrete
proposals about their integration into the SW toolbox if we consider they are worth it.

That said, I agree we are chartered as a marketing group, and that we should stress things
that can be done with the W3C toolbox, how they can be done, and not things that can't,
and therefore in our recommendations, words like : "you can't do that with our toolbox,
use such and such tool which is far better" should certainly be avoided.


Bernard Vatant
Senior Consultant
Knowledge Engineering

"Making Sense of Content" :  http://www.mondeca.com
"Everything is a Subject" :  http://universimmedia.blogspot.com

Received on Wednesday, 9 February 2005 16:05:09 UTC

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