Re: wsmo

thanks a lot for the summary Bijan, really helps

On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>wrote:

> On 5 Apr 2009, at 20:15, paola.dimaio@gmail.com wrote:
>
>  Thanks John,
>>
>> will check it out and send  additional questions
>>
>> also Leo for the clarification about wsml and wsmo
>> I have only had the chance to read a couple of pieces of literature, and
>> have not gotten my head around capturing
>> how owl maps to wsmo, if at all, and if no, how come so
>>
>
> OWL is a language. WSMO is not a language. WSMO is an ontology expressed in
> an ontology language. That ontology language isn't OWL, but, IIRC, WSML.
>
> OWL-S is an ontology, expressed in OWL which covers, roughly, the same
> domain as WSMO.
>
> Thus OWL is to OWL-S what WSML is to WSMO.
>
> WSML was developed because the WSMO developers thought that OWL lacked (or
> had the wrong version of) features they wanted for expressing WSMO.
>
> WSML is mostly rule oriented, though, IIRC, the WSML docs say something
> about incorporating OWL theories.
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
>
>


-- 
Paola Di Maio,
****************************************
Forthcoming
IEEE/DEST 09 Collective Intelligence Track (deadline extended)

i-Semantics 2009, 2 - 4 September 2009, Graz, Austria.
www.i-semantics.tugraz.at

SEMAPRO 2009, Malta
http://www.iaria.org/conferences2009/CfPSEMAPRO09.html
**************************************************
Mae Fah Luang Child Protection Project, Chiang Rai Thailand