- From: Adrian Walker <adrianw@snet.net>
- Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:39:28 -0500
- To: joshgrob@comcast.net
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org, Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Josh -- Let me say that it would be great to see any respectable form of computational logic make it into the commercial big time. The machine-oriented syntax of OWL and its relatives seems to be a major hindrance. It's painful to read, and near impossible to write correctly. Even its originators seem to agree. To quote Ian Horrocks in a recent posting, "no sane person would write directly in OWL/SWRL/SWRL FOL syntax" . He goes on to suggest that "we can therefore safely leave it to tool builders to add convenience features as they see fit" . I'd suggest that such a "disconnected" approach is a key part of the commercial adoption problem. A different, but still logic-based approach to commercialization is in the "e-Government Presentation" at www.reengineeringllc.com . There's an online system at the same site that illustrates the approach. Cheers, -- Adrian Adrian Walker Reengineering LLC PO Box 1412 Bristol CT 06011-1412 USA Phone: USA 860 583 9677 Cell: USA 860 830 2085 Fax: USA 860 314 1029 At 06:24 AM 11/30/2004 +0000, you wrote: >Last week I attended a semantic web seminar hosted by Eric Miller, who is >a Semantic Web Activity Lead for the W3C, and we started to discuss the >future of OWL-S and why it seemed that the industry (chiefly commercial >interests) have been slow to adopt semantic web services. By "slow" we >were comparing how OWL-S does not seem to have the same transition from >more of a research/academic initiative to more commercial implemenations >as seen with RDF and OWL. As such we figured it would be best to open up >a discussion as to why this is, and how to spur the transition as well as >to allow people to comment freely on OWL-S. Here is a list a questions >and statements that may help jumpstart the conversation: > >This OWL-S standard is still a W3C submission. Is it still to early to >discuss the viability of OWL-S before it becomes a >recommendation? Perhaps many are still trying to digest the specifications? > >Are there not enough concrete examples/documentation for users to follow, >and help expose the benefit of semantically describing a web service? > >Are the good examples that do exist not given enough publicity, and a >convenient way to search for them? > >Are there not enough tools to help automate the process of semantically >describing a web service? > >Are there other standards or emerging technologies that overlap with >OWL-S, and lessen its importance? > > >These are just a few questions to start on, but please feel free to >comment on any aspect of this topic. The goal is to create some >excitement, and realization of the importance of OWL-S. Thanks for your >time, and thoughts > >Josh Grob >BBN Technologies >Software Engineer >10 Moulton Street >Cambridge, MA 02138 > > >
Received on Tuesday, 30 November 2004 17:39:56 UTC