- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 23:53:15 -0400
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Cc: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, Jos de Bruijn <jos.debruijn@deri.org>, Holger Wache <holger@cs.vu.nl>, dreer@fh-furtwangen.de, www-rdf-rules@w3.org, public-sws-ig@w3.org, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
> outside of your immediate neighborhood. > > > >I am not involved in any of the aforesaid great projects, but occasionally > >I do run into interesting articles > > http://ontology.buffalo.edu/medo/NCIT.pdf > > http://www.ipsi.fraunhofer.de/orion/pubFulltexts/NCIReview18Feb04.pdf > >which raise questions about the use of OWL for NCIT. > > actually, the first one you cite raises issue about the quality of > the ontology engineering of the thesaurus and not on OWL (which is > used to publish the thesaurus which is developed separately by other > tools - NCI is considering moving to OWL tools in parts of their > process precisely because it would help solve some of these) They also argue that people use OWL incorrectly. > The second paper argues that to improve the ontology one might have > to use OWL-Full. I won't argue with that :-) But they also argue the same point as above (incorrect usage) as well as the lack of certain properties. Although they don't say this explicitly, I think what they have described means that they want database constraints. You need a form of CWA for that. --michael > -JH > > -- > Professor James Hendler Director > Joint Institute for Knowledge Discovery 301-405-2696 > UMIACS, Univ of Maryland 301-314-9734 (Fax) > College Park, MD 20742 http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler >
Received on Friday, 1 July 2005 03:53:34 UTC