Re: on Use cases/ Web portals

Gary,

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that in order to
determine if something is a mammal, you must decide if it has hair, is
warm-blooded, and gives live birth to its young? If so, the ability to
state these kinds of definitions is the sort of thing we hope to provide
with OWL.

However, your point about publications seems somewhat different. It
seems to say that people would be more interested in publications that
have higher circulation. I believe that such "ranking rules" have
potential, but they would be more user-dependent than definitions (i.e.,
I might wish to rank things in different orders than you). Since this is
really a mailing list for specific comments on the WebOnt requirements
document, we are not likely to get much discussion on this topic here. I
recommend that you post your idea to www-rdf-logic@w3.org. Hopefully,
you'll generate a lot of useful feedback there.

Jeff Heflin

Gary Mosher wrote:
> 
> On the subject of ontology.
> I am thinking that instead of allowing search engines to ?infer? connections  between  fields within the ontology-- that it would be more useful for the search engine to "know" how relevant the content is to the particular ?fieldwords? used to describe it. Using the classic example of animal classification,  it might be helpful to see past technical qualification and make distinctions based on how furry or how warm blooded an animal might be.  Using your example I think it would be very helpful to have built in to a match on a word like ?publication? a relevancy percentage based on the publications circulation.  Your thoughts?
> -Gary Mosher

Received on Monday, 25 March 2002 11:09:21 UTC