- From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 13:16:57 +0200
- To: "Arthur T. Murray \(by way of \"Ralph R. Swick\" <swick@w3.org>\)" <uj797@victoria.tc.ca>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> > Interesting to reflect on the fact that ontologies were (partially) > > introduced to enable interoperability between application systems. > > Now we are seeing interoperability-problems between ontology systems. > > Do we need to recurse once more, to solve this problem? > >No, we need to create truly artificial Minds such as >http://mind.sourceforge.net/mind4th.html -- AI in Forth. I'm a big fan of 'artificial mind' approaches, but it doesn't actually help very much in this case: the problem just moves from AI <-> ontology or AI <-> existing data interoperability. (not to mention web hacker <-> Forth interoperability ;-) Personally I don't think the interoperability problems anything like as bad as suggested - on the RDF level at least the language is common, and if the domain of discourse is the same between different applications (even if it's the ontologies themselves) then interoperability shouldn't be difficult. If there is a common, higher-level language such as OWL available that isn't blindingly complex, then tool builders will tend to try and support it. This is what has happened with XML, and with ontology tools has been happening with RDF, and to some extent with DAML+OIL. There will undoubtedly be other (perhaps 'higher') levels of incompatibility between internal models, but the overall interoperability & utility will be increasing. Cheers, Danny.
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2002 07:28:04 UTC