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

RE: GUIDE: New version.

From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:57:35 +0100
Message-ID: <15762.55823.407052.100087@merlin.horrocks.net>
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org

I would suggest dropping the history section on the grounds that we
are wasting valuable time squabbling about it. In case you don't want
to do that, I have suggested a few of my own changes (which I would,
of course, characterise as corrections) below.

Ian

On September 25, Jim Hendler writes:

[snip]

> I do think the history helps -- [1] is the history slide I used at 
> the WWW-2002 brief on the WG -- you can see it includes Shoe, 

In this slide you refer to OIL as the Ontology Interchange
Level. There have been many different versions of what OIL stands for,
but this isn't one of them. Current favourite is "Ontology Inference
Layer".

[snip]

> >>
> >>Suggested new text:
> >>
> >>
> >><p>
> >><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax">The Resource Description
> >>Framework (RDF)</a> was the first language specified by the W3C for
> >>representing semantic information about arbitrary resources.
> >><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/CR-rdf-schema">RDF Schema (RDFS)</a>
> >>is a W3C candidate recommendation for an extension to RDF to describe RDF
> >>vocabularies.
> >>RDFS can be used to create ontologies, but it is purposefully very
> >>lightweight so little can be said about the consituents of ontologies in
> >>RDFS.
> >>Further, RDF and RDFS had only an informal specification of the meaning of
> >>their constructs.
> >></p>
> >>
> >><p>
> >>Like OWL, RDFS includes classes and properties, as well as
> >>range and domain constraints on properties.  It provides
> >>inheritance hierarchies for both classes and properties.  Upon its
> >>release users began requesting additional features, including data
> >>types, enumerations and the ability to define properties more
> >>rigorously.
> >></p>
> >
> >
> ><p> Other efforts in the research community were already examining
> >exactly these sorts of features.  As early as 1995, the
> ><a href="http://www.cs.umd.edu/projects/plus/SHOE">
> >Simple HTML Ontology Extensions <SHOE> project </a> had been
> >exploring the adding of more ontological content to web documents,
> >and soon after the <a
> >href="http://ontobroker.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/index_ob.html">
> >Ontobroker project </a> started, with a focus on annotating sets of
> >web pages related to Knowledge Acquisition.  These projects provided
> >a testbed for exploring ideas including the use of URIs for embedding
> >ontologies on the web, mechanisms for linking and extending
> >ontologies, the first explorations of rule-languages for the web, and
> >the first attempts at formalizing knowledge representation on the
> >web.  SHOE and Ontobroker each resulted in a corpus of marked-up web
> >pages, and in papers describing the dos (and don'ts) of using
> >ontologies on the web.
> >
> >
> >><p>
> >Based on the earlier Ontobroker work, in 1999

This is incorrect. OIL was NOT based on Ontobroker - it was based on a
combination of description logic theory and frame syntax, with the
latter heavily influenced by XOL, an XML serialisation of the OKBC
Lite knowledge model.

Ian
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 05:00:16 GMT

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