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

RE: Semanticworks screenshot RE: [SE] OOSD note

From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 12:45:44 +0200
To: "Jeff Z. Pan" <jpan@csd.abdn.ac.uk>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Cc: "Phil Tetlow" <philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com>, "Holger Knublauch" <holgi@stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <GOEIKOOAMJONEFCANOKCOEIAGPAA.bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>

... and the corresponding RDF/XML file ...

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]De la part de Bernard Vatant
> Envoyé : samedi 8 octobre 2005 12:40
> À : Jeff Z. Pan; public-swbp-wg@w3.org
> Cc : Phil Tetlow; Holger Knublauch
> Objet : Semanticworks screenshot RE: [SE] OOSD note
>
>
>
> Attached is a screenshot in the Altova Semanticworks GUI, of the same "Customer" class
> shown in the Protégé screenshot of the note.
>
> Bernard
>
> > -----Message d'origine-----
> > De : public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]De la part de Bernard Vatant
> > Envoyé : samedi 8 octobre 2005 12:04
> > À : Jeff Z. Pan; public-swbp-wg@w3.org
> > Cc : Phil Tetlow; Holger Knublauch
> > Objet : RE: [SE] OOSD note
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello all
> >
> > Two remarks on this vey interesting note
> >
> > 1. I already made a comment about the definition of OWL classes as "sets" of
> individuals
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0045.html
> > No answer so far, but I see it has been included in the OO/OWL comparison
> table, so ...
> >
> > 2. [TODO: Possibly also include screenshots of other tools (Cerebra has been
> > suggested) -
> > I welcome contributions -- hk]
> > Maybe it would be worth considering the new Altova tool Semanticworks
> > http://www.altova.com/products_semanticworks.html
> > The interesting thing is that this tool has been developed as part of an XML toolkit,
> > which makes it quite different of Protégé or SWOOP. The GUI will sound
> familiar to users
> > of XMLSpy, but quite weird to Protégé users. I've downloaded and tried it a bit. There
> > seems to remain quite a bunch a bugs in this early version, but worth looking
> at anyway.
> > To many people in this group, it will be strange to see how it handles "ontology
> > validation", which IMO seems to look more like an XML schema validation.
> "Validation" of
> > files edited under Protégé and SWOOP gives strange bunches of "errors", and
> if you edit
> > them, you get of course yet another serialization. I had already experienced
> > that kind of
> > problems between Protégé and SWOOP, so it is not big news :))
> >
> > This leads me to note that maybe there is something misleading in section 3.1
> >
> > "RDF just defines the very basic syntax for Semantic Web content, and has an XML
> > serialization that allows users to share models on the Web."
> >
> > It would be more honest to point that RDF has *many* XML serializations, and
> > that the same
> > set of triples can be expressed in an unbound variety of syntaxes, none of them being
> > canonical, and which are likely to become arbitrarily complex for large RDF
> > graphs (which
> > I stick to think is a major issue for wide adoption and interoperability). So
> maybe the
> > document should include somewhere that tools editors should be aware of
> issues raised by
> > this very variety of syntaxes, and that "conformant" RDF tools (which somehow handle
> > internally the semantics of RDF) are bound to exchange RDF not only with each
> other, but
> > with more loosy applications which will rely more on XML structure than on
> > underlying RDF
> > semantics, and of which RDF parsers are likely to be less tolerant to exotic
> > serializations.
> >
> > My concern here is that this group should make the community aware of the risk
> > of building
> > software environments able to use only on a specific, and de facto "proprietary" RDF
> > serialization. Now that we begin to have a variety of RDF tools coming to the
> > market from
> > various backgrounds, it would be good to address real life interoperability
> issues, like
> > "Can I edit an ontology exported from Protégé into SWOOP, Altova Semanticworks ... and
> > send it back to Protégé without loosing anything?". Maybe this is not exactly
> > in the scope
> > of this note, but seems somehow related.
> >
> > Bernard
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------
> > Bernard Vatant
> > Mondeca Knowledge Engineering
> > bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
> > (+33) 0871 488 459
> >
> > http://www.mondeca.com
> > http://universimmedia.blogspot.com
> > ----------------------------------
> >
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > De : public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
> > > [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]De la part de Jeff Z. Pan
> > > Envoyé : vendredi 7 octobre 2005 16:24
> > > À : public-swbp-wg@w3.org
> > > Cc : Phil Tetlow; Holger Knublauch
> > > Objet : [SE] OOSD note
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > The OOSD note is now available from the SETF homepage.
> > >
> > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/SE/ODSD/
> > >
> > > Greetings,
> > > Jeff
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jeff Z. Pan (http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/~jpan/)
> > > Department of Computing Science, The University of Aberdeen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>




Received on Saturday, 8 October 2005 10:45:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:44 UTC