[OEP] New Editor's Draft of Semantic Interoperability & Integration Note


You can also navigate to it:
SWBPD - TaskForces - OEP(description) - EditorsDrafts - 

Ralph, Elisa: this was an action from either a SWBPD or OEP telecon. Please note it has been done.


Semantic interoperability means enabling different agents, services, and applications to exchange information, data and knowledge, on and off the Web.  To enable semantic interoperability agents, services, and applications need to share the same mutually understood vocabulary or to create correspondences or mappings between their different vocabularies. One of the design goals of  RDF and OWL is to provide the means to specify such mappings. This note provides guidance on how OWL and RDF can be used to enable semantic interoperability. 

We briefly characterize what we mean by semantic interoperability, and what the challenges are. We describe some RDF and OWL constructs that are designed to support semantic interoperability and illustrate them with examples. We highlight their strengths and limitations. The main strengths are the ability to import, share and reuse public ontologies (in whole or part) [MFU2] <http://cmenzel.org/w3c/SemanticInterop.html#_msocom_2>  and the ability to express logical equivalence and other relationships between concepts, properties and individuals in different ontologies. One main weakness is the lack of support for procedural functions (e.g. arithmetic, string manipulation) that are needed for mapping between many real-world ontologies. 

Status of this Document

This is a nearly complete first draft of this note.
The outline and structure of the document is stable.
The major change form the last version is that there is a narratave for the different OWL mapping constructs. The major content remaining to be added are the code examples. 

[ANTICIPATED:] This document is the First Public Working Draft. We encourage public comments. Please send comments to public-swbp-wg@w3.org [archive <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/> ] and start the subject line of the message with "comment:"

Open issues, todo items: 

*	Complete the examples, adding code and sufficient supplementary text. 
*	Tidy up a bit the comments about interoperability vs. integration. The fact is, the same mapping constructs can be used for both. The distinction is an architectural one.
*	Use cases should probably tie in better with the text.
*	Say something about why Namespaces and Imports are out of scope, but that they are broadly relevant. 

Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.

Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2006 20:26:40 UTC