RE: Apply Ontology Automatically (was: Ontology editor + why RDF?)

Here's my favorite example of useful automated ontology application, achieved by combining two readily available technologies:

http://www.hackdiary.com/archives/000070.html

Matt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Internet
> Business Logic
> Sent: 03 April 2006 16:44
> To: Phillip Lord
> Cc: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Apply Ontology Automatically (was: Ontology editor + why
> RDF?)
> 
> 
> 
> Phillip --
> 
> You wrote (below) "ability ... to be able to apply the 
> ontology automatically in some circumstances"
> 
> This could be the major selling point.  Otherwise, the value 
> of the ontology depends on how well programmers read, 
> understand, and use it.  And, if they did that well, was it 
> their value-add, not that of the ontology?
> 
> Do you have examples in which an ontology has been applied 
> automatically to do a significant real world task?
> 
> (Questions intended constructively).
> 
>                          Thanks    -- Adrian Walker
> 
> -- 
> 
> Internet Business Logic (R)
> Executable open vocabulary English
> Online at www.reengineeringllc.com
> Shared use is free
> 
> Reengineering,  PO Box 1412,  Bristol,  CT 06011-1412,  USA
> 
> Phone 860 583 9677     Mobile 860 830 2085     Fax 860 314 1029
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phillip Lord wrote:
> 
> >>>>>>"Anita" == deWaard, Anita (ELS) <A.dewaard@elsevier.com> writes:
> >>>>>>            
> >>>>>>
> > 
> >  Anita> I am reminded of a saying on a Dutch proverb calendar: "If
> >  Anita> love is the answer, could you please repeat the 
> question?" If
> >  Anita> semantics are the answer - what is the problem that is being
> >  Anita> solved, in a way no other technology lets you? b
> >
> >To be honest, I think that this is a recipe of despair; I don't think
> >that there is any one thing that SW enables you do to that could not
> >do in another way. It's a question of whether you can do things more
> >conveniently, or with more commonality than other wise; 
> after all, XML
> >is just an extensible syntax and, indeed, could do exactly nothing
> >that SGML could not do (when it came out -- XML standards exceed SGML
> >ones now). XML has still been successful. 
> >
> >It's more a question of whether, RDF or OWL provides a combination of
> >things that we would not get otherwise. With OWL (DL and lite), I
> >rather like the ability to check my model with a reasoner, and to be
> >able to apply the ontology automatically in some circumstances. With
> >RDF, you have a convenient technology for building a hyperlinked
> >resource, but with added link types. 
> >
> >Of course, you could do the latter with straight XML (well, since RDF
> >is XML, you are doing so). And the former could be done without OWL,
> >just with a raw DL; of course, then you wouldn't get some of the
> >additional features of OWL (such as multi-lingual support which
> >derives directly from the XML). 
> >
> >  Anita> Perhaps if we can find a way to nail this down (I also
> >  Anita> believe the use cases of this working group, and 
> the group as
> >  Anita> a whole is certainly working towards that aim!) we could try
> >  Anita> to not just preach the semantic gospel, but
> >  Anita> actually sell it (forgive the mixed metaphor)... 
> >
> >Having said all that went before, I agree with this; having a set of
> >RDF/OWL life sciences success stories which explained why the
> >technology was appropriate (if not uniquely appropriate) would be a
> >good thing, if it has not been done before. 
> >
> >Cheers
> >
> >Phil
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
This email has been scanned by Postini.
For more information please visit http://www.postini.com

Received on Monday, 3 April 2006 15:52:53 UTC