Re: Generic Property-Value Proposal for

Hi Martin,

Please see below:

On 4/30/2014 6:26 PM, wrote:
> Peter:
> I think we simply have a very different understanding of what Web vocabularies should be like, and at which point in Web-scale information interchange the standardization of data semantics should take place. The working assumption of your camp is that data on the Web should be ready for, or close to, naive consumption by relatively simple computational operations. But this is an untested claim from the Semantic Web community.
> And yes, in theory one could make an OWL DL vocabulary out of all of this, see [1] and [2]. The problem is, among many other problems, that "ontologizing" copyrighted standards is non-trivial, which is why we cannot host the OWL versions of eClass, UNSPSC, CPV, ProfiClass, etc. that our tool [2] generates, and that owners of data are typically not able to map their product feature data to those standards.

Are you saying there are legal restrictions to create mapping files 
between industry standards (some of which may be proprietary) and 
internal vocabularies? Are there any restrictions to publicly releasing 
such mappings?

If these are allowable, then "hosting" the native vocabularies is 

My understanding of the answer to these two questions is NO.  But, I 
only play a lawyer on TV.

Thanks, Mike

> Sorry for being so frank, but I am constantly annoyed by people who complain every time and related developments do not follow their Semantic Web assumtions and predictions.
> Martin
> [1] Products and Services Ontologies: A Methodology for Deriving OWL Ontologies from Industrial Categorization Standards, in: Int'l Journal on Semantic Web & Information Systems (IJSWIS), Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 72-99, January-March 2006.
> [2]


Michael K. Bergman
CEO  Structured Dynamics LLC

Received on Thursday, 1 May 2014 00:06:28 UTC