W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > December 2001

RE: WebOnt General Requirements Subgroup - Initial E-mail

From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 23:06:29 +0100
To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: heflin@cse.lehigh.edu, dlm@ksl.stanford.edu, ned.smith@intel.com, jeremy_carroll@hp.com, phayes@ai.uwf.edu, connolly@w3.org, jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, herman.ter.horst@philips.com, hendler@cs.umd.edu, www-archive@w3.org
Message-Id: <OF87DFCB94.25B039C1-ON41256B1E.00755B3C@bayer-ag.com>
I can agree with most of what Jeremy is saying here.
However, I think that the language should
??enable?? search/query/proof (but not do it)

Some time ago, I also copied a slide from TimBL
[[[
Ontology layer
  o More metainformation, such as
      o Transitive property
      o Unique, Unambiguous, Cardinality, etc
  o Ontology community exists- DL, OIL, SHOE, etc. etc.
  o Huge extra usage for extra functionality
  o Not Turing complete
  o Wide interoperability & interconversion
]]] -- forgot the URI :-(

and I found that very interesting
especially the "Not Turing complete" requirement
but also the "interconversion"

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/






"Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> on 2001-12-10 05:34:29 PM

To:   "Jeff Heflin" <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>, "Deborah McGuinness"
      <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
cc:   <ned.smith@intel.com>, <jeremy_carroll@hp.com>, <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>,
      <connolly@w3.org>, <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>,
      <herman.ter.horst@philips.com>, <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, <www-archive@w3.org>
Subject:  RE: WebOnt General Requirements Subgroup - Initial E-mail

My views Y(es)/N(o)/?(undecided), justifications follow.

>
> Jeff's            Deborah's      Original list
> -------------------    --------------------      -------------------
> shared meaning         multi-user
Y
> ontology reuse         extensible
Y
> ontology evolution     versioning           versioning
Y
> interoperability  diff and merge       domain mapping
Y
> inconsistency                          inconsistency
Y
> scalability       scalability          large ontologies
Y
> user-friendly          ease of use
?
> data persistence
N
>              security
N
>              XML interfaces
N
>              internationalization
?
>                             ontology-based search
N
>                             ontology querying
N

================
Justifications of Ns & ?s
-------------------------
N> data persistence
N> security
N> xml interfaces
?> internationalization

are part of the metadata layer of semantic web architecture (RDF), not part
of the ontology layer. RDF might not offer adequate answers yet but the
problems should be fixed there.
There may be internationalization issues that are part of the ontology
layer; but most i18n is in the metadata layer.

N> ontology-based search
N> ontology querying

I think these are later work. I would expect standardization of metadata
layer query to precede that of ontology layer query. There is no sign of
metadata layer query standardization so I think WOW-G should duck ontology
query standardization.

?>user-friendly

"If you want friendly get a dog"
The language is for machine to machine communication. Friendliness is for
apps on top of it.

Jeremy
Received on Monday, 10 December 2001 17:09:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:15 GMT