RE: Tools

- phil,  

> I've seen a number of largish ontologies generated by hand in 
> OWL (and originally DAML+OIL). The problem is one of syntax. 
> The XML representation of OWL is fairly long winded and hard 
> to read. I'm less than convinced that it's appropriate for 
> (editing) a large ontology. 

Yes, I agree.  I don't have objections to using any editing tools.  But for
the beginers, I don't think they will be asked to build a large ontology
before they understand the technology. I just hope when they start, they
start from the RDF/OWL specification.  Once they understood the
technologies, actually anything should be fine because the rest is just a
syntax and presentation. 

By the way, anyone feels that RDF/OWL need a graphical notation language
like UML to OO?  I did.  When presenting ontologies in talks etc., it is
nice to have such a language, don't your guys agree?  And for this reason, I
have created my own (http://www.charlestoncore.org/dlg2/), I build a visio
template for it as well (http://www.charlestoncore.org/dlg2/).  I don't
think any variation on UML is good because UML is inherantly based on OO,
making it awkward to represent RDF.

Eric, I am not sure if W3C has the intention to do this, if not, I wonder if
anyone want or think that we should make it a community effort?

Xiaoshu

Received on Monday, 17 October 2005 15:15:44 UTC