RE: Tools

I may be unusual in that I built ontologies in OIL before I'd even heard of 
RDF. Why would I have to understand RDF in order to understand or use 
soemthing like OWL. the Manchester tutorials (www.co-ode.org) teach OWL and 
pay little attention to RDF at all.

robert.At 16:13 17/10/2005, wangxiao wrote:

>- 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 15:28:03 UTC