- From: Greg FitzPatrick <gf@medianet.org>
- Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 10:59:45 +0100
- To: <R.van.Dort@Everest.nl>
- Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Funny thing about that "top level ontology" you sent us to, is that nothing seems to be more recent there than 1997? Greg > -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > Från: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]För R.van.Dort@Everest.nl > Skickat: den 1 mars 2000 09:47 > Till: www-rdf-interest@w3.org > Ämne: RDF and the rest of the world > > > There are lots of interesting discussions in this forum. > > On the other hand I get a real 'deja vu' following the vivid > discussions on > items beyond core RDF. > > Knowing a bit of the developments at Cycorp (www.cyc.com) I see > some wheels > being reinvented. > > Cycorp has developed a knowledge base, an inference engine, a query and > manipulation language and -last but not least- a comprehensive set of > content consisting of abstract microtheories containing real-world > knowledge. > > Regarding discussions on 'thing' and 'resource': see one of the top level > ontologies that you can access after signing the guestbook at > http://www.cyc.com/cyc-2-1/index.html > 'Thing' is an oftenly used top-level concept but I must admit that > "Resource Description Framework" sounds better than "Thing Description > Framework". > Resource description is our context. > > There are many other initiatives worldwide: WordNet has been referred to > earlier in this forum; there is also OntoBroker and the Wave / > CKML efforts > (Robert E. Kent et al). > > Let us focus on the basic items for RDF and link to work done by others > later on. >
Received on Wednesday, 1 March 2000 05:00:05 UTC