- From: Aseem Das <aseem.das@blackpearl.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 13:16:26 -0400 (EDT)
- To: public-webont-comments@w3.org
Hello, I currently work on ontology tools and solutions at BlackPearl and worked on them previously at VerticalNet and recently reviewed the OWL feature synopsis document. In my current work and also previous work at VerticalNet, I find it very useful that international organizations like w3c are working to produce an ontology language like OWL-Lite. I find work on a language such as OWL Lite to be the right strategy for acceptance by application developers and tool builders. It is a simpler language to understand and implement and from my experience sufficient for most business commercial requirements. If OWL Lite had been available when we started the VerticalNet Ontobuilder/OntoServer we would have implemented it first and then incorporated the more sophisticated features of OWL as business demands required it. We are working with the same approach at BlackPearl currently. Some specific comments: In the ontology tools developed at VerticalNet, we restricted the names of individuals & classes to be unique within an ontology and that did not give us any problems. The "differentIndividualFrom" feature will give rise to a large number of declarations, depending on the number of individuals in the ontology (N combinatorial 2 - where N is the number of individuals which are unique). We also used full cardinalities quite a bit and restricting them to be just 0 and 1 in OWL-Lite may not be sufficient for most business reqs. We also used "hasValue", often to give default values to properties either upon definition or upon attachment. Thanks Aseem Das
Received on Thursday, 3 October 2002 03:40:16 UTC