W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-rules@w3.org > July 2005

Re: Web Rule Language - WRL vs SWRL

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>
Message-Id: <20050701035315.923CBCB5D3@kiferserv.kiferhome.com>

> 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.


>   -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 03:53:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:49:40 UTC