W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > September 2002

Regrets

From: Yanosy John-QJY000 <jyanosy@motorola.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 11:39:30 -0500
Message-ID: <0B0A39652BB0D411BCCF00508B9512EC06AA35C5@tx14exm05.ftw.mot.com>
To: "'Guus Schreiber'" <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org, Bates Jeff-FJB011 <jeff.bates@motorola.com>
I regret not able to participate today and for next two weeks.

My own perspective for Web Ontology are:

1. Ensure that ontology webs can be created with embedded aspects covering
different aspects of trust. In my original email I proposed certain criteria
for this and I believe that without this aspect there will be some
resistance to using publicly available ontologies. Of course organizations
could announce their intentions with respect to commitment levels for an
ontology and maintaining compatibility going forward.

2. The question of whether the Trust should be part of the OWL or a separate
domain specific ontology specification based on OWL, much in the manner that
Meta Services specification was developed, DAML-S based on DAML, is
reasonable. I suspect that a better approach would be to specify a Trust
Language expressed in OWL, that could be part of a meta specification for
any OWL based ontology.

3. I don't have the visibility into all of the W3C related efforts, in this
area, but efforts such as ISP MPEG 21, defines an overall framework of
interrelated languages that attack a certain problem space, in this latter
case a multimedia framework. In this case they not only identify a language
for describing media elements and characteristics, but also were concerned
with such aspects as Rights Management (IPMP), etc. I will look more
carefully at this effort and also search for any other W3C related aspects
such as P3P, that might provide a clue to whether it is useful to define a
Trust language that attacks the problem of using publicly available
ontologies in a linked manner.

If anyone thinks this a worthwhile activity or could point to other sources
of information on this problem, I would appreciate any references. I do
believe this a real problem that should be solved, and at this time I am
tending toards defining a separate Trust language that should be expressed
using OWL. 


Best Regards,
John Yanosy Jr.
Fellow of the Technical Staff
5555 N. Beach St., Ft. Worth, TX 76137-2794
Tel: 1-817-245-6665
Fax: 1-817-245-6580
2-Way Pager: 1-800-SKYTEL2, PIN:2456665
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2002 12:39:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:52 GMT