- From: Uschold, Michael F <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 17:34:24 -0800
- To: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>, <welty@us.ibm.com>
At a recent OEP meeting Pat Hayes made some great points, and there was some good discusion. The following summarizes what was said, to the best of my ability. * many traditional prolbms of semantic interoperability will go away with the Semantic Web, mainly because there is an infrastructure to support semantic agreements (through publishing ontologies) * the Semantic Web forces people to think about making thing interoperable more than before, hence things will be better. * problems of semantic interoperability will go away to the extent that people reference and re-use public ontologies in ways that are consistent with their original intended use. o e.g. FOAF: mailboxOf , DC:author * Semantic Web provides not only the technical capability, but the social motivation to resue concepts, so less translation will be necessary * Warning: reusing ontologies is hard, just like reusing software code is hard. People reuse code in the wrong way. The Semantic Web makes it likely that people will reuse [portions of] ontologies in incorrect ways too. Pat: can you please elaborate on this a bit, I'm sure I missed some key things. BTW: my current working abstract for the note is: This note addresses the role of OWL in overcoming problems of semantic heterogeneity. We briefly characterize what we mean by semantic interoperability, and what the challenges are. We describe some OWL constructs that are designed to support semantic interoperability and illustrate them with examples. We highlight their strengths and limitations. The main message is that OWL is no silver bullet for the general problem of achieving semantic interoperability. The support provided is very limited. Many of these limitations will be overcome by the Semantic Web Rule Language (SWRL) that is currently under development. Thanks Mike
Received on Saturday, 5 February 2005 01:34:58 UTC