[WRLD ?] : do we have to consider such problems ?

Hi,

Here is a  precise question i have recently received and for wich it
could be great to have some pointers to guidelines 
where people could find some responses. But is it in the scope of the
SWBP WG (WRLD) ?

The question  :

	"For my project I need some semantic features and to reason on
ontologies
	so i have taken into consideration the following tools :
		FaCT, RACER, jena, JTP, Pellet, Jess, Clips, Jadex,
tuprolog, Algernon.
		Could you give me some advices ?"

	Oups!! It's really a strange tools salad, isn't it ?

	So, do you think that what we can say could be :

		1) If your project has something to deal with the WEB
the best solution is to use RDFS/OWL (and optionaly here are the
criteria to decide if you are in a SW context : ....) . 
	In this case the first criteria will be to see if one reasoner
support such a language. This response implicitly means that 
		RDFS/OWL are such powerful languages that every SWApp
can be built on top of them. But are we sure of this ?
		If not (we are still in a SW context but we need more
expressiveness) :  what kind of advice in the choice of the good
language can we give (choose what you want or try to mix different
languages ?) and WHERE people can find SWBP although OWL is not used (or
in other word what are the parts of the SWBP notes that you can reuse
even if you don't use RFDS/OWL)

		2) If not, can we say or not : to use RDFS/OWL is still
the best solution and here are the parts of our notes 
		that you can reuse even if you are not in a SWBP
context.
		Can we say that if you are not in a SWBP context you can
build ontologies with other languages reason with no OWL/RDFS reasoner
and that you can't/won't find any help in the SWBP group notes. ? In
this case do we have to give people the good pointers to the good
SNonWebBP guidelines ?


	Best regards

	Marco NANNI