RE: OWL 2.0 ...

Jim,

We are working on an ontology proof of concept for a NEO (non-combatant extraction operation) and taking into account Fitness for Use issues for datasets supporting such a mission. It would be nice to infer such things as completeness and quality in the context of a given objective. 


hope this helps add to your list ;>)

Nate Dailey
nathaniel.dailey@baesystems.com

-----Original Message-----
From: public-owl-dev-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-owl-dev-request@w3.org]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 9:15 AM
To: public-owl-dev@w3.org
Subject: OWL 2.0 ...



  (NOTE: This is a private message, it has no link to the Sem Web 
activity, or anything else -- I write this wearing my professor hat!)

In recent days I've been attending a lot of meetings where I have 
been approached by people talking about not just the limitations of 
the current OWL (something I've been hearing about for a long time 
:-)) but actually talking about proposed technical solutions.   I 
think it would be good to start to collect some of these and to think 
a bit about those things that we might want to see go into some 
future OWL version
   There's a wide variety of these things going from simple extensions 
to OWL (such as adding qualified restrictions, having an 
owl:allDisjoint , etc.)  to adding some standard ways of doing common 
things in other KR langauges  (part-whole, bounded transitivity, 
probability models)  or going beyond to new concepts in Sem Web (new 
models of partial import, named ontology segments, etc.)
   I'd like to hear what people are working on, or what people need - 
this way we'll have these ideas on record for the eventual next 
generation of OWL technology.
   -Jim H,.




-- 
Professor James Hendler			  Director, Semantic Web and 
Agent Technologies
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-2696
8400 Baltimore Ave, Suite 200			  301-314-9734 (Fax)
College Park, MD 20742	 		  http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler

Received on Thursday, 7 April 2005 16:27:22 UTC