Re: Ontology editor + why RDF?

I believe there is an additional advantage beyond semantics and the "web".

I would suggest that the quality of information models can be significantly
improved using semantic web methods and tools as compared to those developed
using other methods in common use, e.g., relational, XML, UML.  With
semantic web methods and tools, more of an information model can be made
explicit in a formal language while the model remains amenable to automated
validation and testing. In other words, things about an information model
that can only said implicitly with other methods (e.g., in documentation)
can be said explicitly with semantic web methods while still maintaining the
capability for applying fully automated validation and testing to the model.



The reason for this is the work that has been done in the theory of
Description Logic on which the semantic web rests. Description logic
provides the foundation on which formal languages for describing information
models may be defined. RDF/OWL is the standard description logic formal
language of the semantic web.



Thus, as you know, a knowledge base described in RDF/OWL has the following
characteristics:



1.      Whether the knowledge base is amenable to automated validation and
testing can be readily determined by a grammatical examination of the
features of RDF/OWL used in the description. OWL DL is the sublanguage of
RDF/OWL which supports automated validation and testing.



2.      Given that a knowledge base is amenable to automated validation and
testing, a fully automated "reasoner"  can used to perform such validation
and testing.


Specification of an information model in a formal language with the
certainty that the validity of such a specification can be tested
automatically can go a long way in improving the quality of the model.

jb


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kashyap, Vipul" <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
To: "Danny Ayers" <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Cc: "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>; "deWaard, Anita (ELS)"
<A.dewaard@elsevier.com>; <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 8:08 AM
Subject: RE: Ontology editor + why RDF?



> I saw a quote not long ago, not sure of the source (recognise this
> Jim?), approximately: "what's new about the Semantic Web isn't the
> semantics but the web".

[VK] This is a great quote and expresses clearly that the value proposition
     in representing and linking vocabularies using URIs stems from the
     Web more than "semantics"

> I take VK's point that this in itself isn't going to convince many IT
> folks. I think the big persuader there is data integration, even on a
> sub-enterprise kind of scale.

[VK] Agreed, one of the clearer value propositions is data integration.

> Being able to use ontologies to infer new information is a massive
> plus (I imagine especially in the lifesciences). Bigger still are the
> (anticipated) benefits of the Semantic Web when the network effect
> kicks in. But the ability to use RDF to simply merge data from
> multiple sources consistently (and query across it), without needing
> complete up-front schema design is a very immediate, tangible gain.
>
> The work done around SKOS (and specific tasks like expressing WordNet
> in RDF) does suggest RDF/OWL is a particularly good technology choice
> for thesauri.

[VK] Danny, has articulated some potential benefits:
     - Network effects
     - Schema-less linking based data integration

I would argue that both these benefits stem from the web infrastructure and
have
nothing to do with the "semantics" of anything per-se.

Also, one could argue that having a standardized markup language whether it
be even HTML or XML enables the above to a significant extent.

So the value proposition question could be:

What is it about RDF that enables network effects and schema less data
linking
better than HTML, relational tables or XML in a more significant manner?

Is the improvement enabled v/s the cost required to achieve it an attractive
trade off?

Look forward to yours and the groups responses to these questions.

Cheers,

---Vipul

Received on Friday, 31 March 2006 19:34:51 UTC