- From: Aliza Lila <alizalila@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:15:39 +0100
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
Hi, I've been using several owl editors lately (protege3 and 4, swoop, powl). They often interpret the .owl differently. This, of course, is not a good situation because it undermines a fundamental idea of the semantic web: a common, cross domain, interpretation of information. I've been thinking about practical methods for solving this problem. - an ACID test - W3C could post an owl, some data, and some reasoning. Software could then be validated to come to the same conclusions. Software makers have a benchmark to check against. - a checksum - A very specific method for serializing core data of the .owl should result into something that uniquely identifies the inner logic of the .owl The result can be checksum'ed and is thus available for comparing against other .owl software. A use case: a site hosts an .owl for download, the description of it includes a number. After downloading the .owl and loading it into a software, the number can be checked against the number that is calculated by the software itself. - a round trip mechanisme - W3C could provide a specific load-save regime: start with one particular editor, load .owl, change it, save it. Then open the .owl in another editor and repeat the same steps. Etc. Final step is to load the .owl in the first editor again and see if all is still okay. - note on rdf validators - The online rdf validators at the moment 'simply' check the syntax, but considering the application of rdf, this is not enough. They should validate the inner logic as well, or.. at least be able to compare two 'logics' that are derived from the same .owl from two differnet .owl editors. I think the w3c should take initiative in solving this problem. The application of SW in internet software would be really helped if people can trust a complex entity like an .owl . Because if the users cannot, the only way to solve it is to go under the hood and manually correct the problems. Considering the complexities of ..owl this will hinder the uptake of it considerably. And we all know the problems that still hinder us as the result from web browsers not interpreting the html similarly. We should learn from this: give people benchmarks so the can communicate and recognize and understand the preformances of individual .owl software. Kind regards, Aliza Lila (an enthousiastic software developer )
Received on Tuesday, 19 December 2006 14:31:44 UTC