- From: Phil Tetlow <philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 16:04:15 +0100
- To: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
- Cc: SWBPD list <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
All, Apologies for the late review comments, squeezing time of my work schedule if proving difficult at present. With reference to (http://cmenzel.org/w3c/SemanticInterop.html) : Abstract 1. “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”. Would have preferred a more generalised statement such as “Semantic interoperability means enabling different artefacts such as agents, services, and applications to coalesce via exchange information, data and knowledge, on and off the Web. To achieve this such artefacts need to either share mutually understood vocabularies or have access to correspondences and transformations between their different terminologies” 2. “We highlight their strengths and limitations” replace with “We highlight the strengths and limitations of current Semantic Web approaches” 3. I would not highlight any main advantages or disadvantages in the abstract, this is detail for later in the note. Introduction: 1. Prefer the wording: “Semantic Web languages, such as RDF and OWL, enhance opportunities for automated interoperability in a number of ways. For instance they can provide localised contexts and technical framework to reuse existing ontologies. This is achieved by providing formal mechanisms to express formal relationships between classes and properties from different information or solution spaces. The goal of this note is, therefore, to give users and application developers a brief introduction to the concept of Semantic Interoperability and Integration in order for them to exploit languages like OWL effectively. Nevertheless, ultimately, it is up to the users to reuse ontologies and the relationships between them in an appropriate manner.” Use Cases: 1. Sorry, but this section looks very rough. At the very least I would mention that only a few examples are listed here. What do we mean by Semantic Interoperability & Integration 1. Para 1 – replace “across ontologies” with “across isolated ontologies” 2. Para 2 “The terms ‘semantic interoperability’ and ‘semantic integration’ are often used loosely and somewhat interchangeably”…Might be better as “The terms ‘semantic interoperability’ and ‘semantic integration’ are often confused and used to mean the same thing” 3. Para 2 – Replace “The core idea for both is the existence of and desire to bridge a semantic gap between different systems or applications that use different vocabularies” with…”The core idea of both is to achieve the amalgamation or interchange of assets that share semantically identical concepts, descriptions and terms. These are often aggregated into data stores such as referencable vocabularies” 4. Para 2 – Replace “The main difference is an architectural one” with “The main differences, hence predominantly relate to Information Architecture” 5. Para 3. It is dangerous to generalise on the term “agent”. This invoke an image of “activity” as in the notion of “process”. Would be better to use the term “asset” – its much more inert. 6. Para 3 – Better not make an explicit commercial reference such as “Verizon”…In fact don’t like the rest of this para…sorry! Semantic I&I and the Semantic Web: Some Basic Guidelines 1. Para 1- Again I do not see that “social structure” is of real relevance here. 2. Para 2 – Replace “The Semantic Web activity in the W3C made a significant advance on the language heterogeneity problem through the introduction of formal recommendations for several standard XML-based ontology languages, notably, RDF, RDF Schema (RDFS) and OWL. The syntax and semantics of these languages are open, well-defined standards.” With “The W3C’s Semantic Web activity has led to a number of advances in the integration space with the formal graph-based languages such as RDF, RDF Schema (RDFS) and OWL.” 3. Principle 1: To facilitate semantic I&I, create new ontologies in OWL. – Instead of aggressively promoting OWL like this it might be better to just suggest “standardising on an implementation approach using a language such as OWL” 4. Principle 2: To facilitate semantic I&I, translate existing ontologies into OWL – You need to clarify “more expensive” in much more detail, or leave out completely. Sorry, just been called out to a meeting. I’ll try and add more comments over the next week or two. Hope this small contribution helps for now. Best Regards, Philip Tetlow Senior Consultant (Certified Technical Architect) IBM Business Consulting Services Mail: IBM United Kingdom Limited, 1175 Century Way, Thorpe Park, Colton, Leeds, LS15 8ZB Mobile: +44 (0)7740 923328 Email: philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu. nl> To Sent by: Phil Tetlow/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Giorgos public-swbp-wg-re Stamou <gstam@softlab.ntua.gr>, quest@w3.org Fabien Gandon <Fabien.Gandon@sophia.inria.fr> cc 20/03/2006 14:55 SWBPD list <public-swbp-wg@w3.org> Subject review Semantic Integration note Phil, Giorgos, Fabien, You said some time ago that you were willing to review the Semantic Integration note. Mike Uschold produced a few weeks ago a new editor's draft [1]. Could you still do the review? Thanks, Guus [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Feb/0170.html -- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Computer Science De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands T: +31 20 598 7739/7718; F: +31 84 712 1446 Home page: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/
Received on Tuesday, 28 March 2006 15:04:04 UTC