- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 22:41:16 +0200
- To: "Matthias Samwald" <samwald@gmx.at>
- Cc: "Michel_Dumontier" <Michel_Dumontier@carleton.ca>, <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
On May 16, 2008, at 5:44 PM, Matthias Samwald wrote: >> However, how _exactly_ can the process of "editing the complex, >> expressive ontologies" be improved? Concrete suggestions welcome. > > The process is not the problem. It would be a good start if the > ontology editors would work as advertised, Uhm...afaik, all the tools mentioned below are advertised as best effort, open source, free beer tools. I believe we pretty clearly adverted Swoop as being primarily our *test bed* (note we never had specific funding for swoop...it was always skunkworks and spare time). (Oh, and, naturally, it really is effectively dead dead dead.) > without introducing logical or syntactic errors into the ontologies > during normal work procedure; and if they would adhere to the > respective standards and not some specific interpretation thereof. > I would estimate that 50% of the time editing the SenseLab > ontologies was actually spent on fixing problems caused by Protege > 3.x. Don't get me wrong, I like Protege, but it can have its > downsides in certain scenarios. Swoop also caused me some troubles, > and Protege 4 was/is still in Alpha version... Speaking as a tool builder, I don't have any problem with this sort of statement (phrased nicely and fairly!). Of course, it helps if bugs are reported (or patches offered) etc. etc. etc. I think things will get better. There are more shops working on stuff. The underlying apis are way more mature. And the specs are getting much better (don't underestimate this point; working from the old owl specs was unnecessarily hard). However, the more general effort put in the better...I ended up doing a lot of QA work on swoop and that's certainly something many people can learn how to do... Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Friday, 16 May 2008 20:41:57 UTC