W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > February 2004

Re: Real World Semantic Web Tools?

From: Richard H. McCullough <rhm@volcano.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 21:41:23 -0800
Message-ID: <009201c3f1f4$2bed92d0$bd7ba8c0@rhm8200>
To: "Mansur Darlington" <ensmjd@bath.ac.uk>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Cc: <semanticweb@yahoogroups.com>, <kaw@swi.psy.uva.nl>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

Real world applications are hampered by the lack of
certain features in the RDF/OWL languages.
I designed my own MKR language (http://rhm.cdepot.net/)
which includes these essential features:
It is also more user-friendly because it is English-like.

Dick McCullough
knowledge := man do identify od existent done;
knowledge haspart proposition list;
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mansur Darlington" <ensmjd@bath.ac.uk>
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Cc: <semanticweb@yahoogroups.com>; <kaw@swi.psy.uva.nl>;
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 6:41 AM
Subject: Real World Semantic Web Tools?

> First, an apology for cross-posting this.
> This is a plea for help, from some fairly non-techy information users,
> but we feel it might strike a chord of recognition across interest groups!
> We are trying to explore the practical benefits that developing Semantic
> Web technologies might have to offer for improving access to information
> for engineering designers. As part of this effort we wish to demonstrate
> the advantages of SW technologies over conventional information search
> and retrieval approaches (assuming there really are any!).
> Using a document test-bed and a couple of ontologies developed weve
> demonstrated some of the potential benefits that can be achieved (akin
> to those found in any basic RDF primer or the like). We now wish to
> provide a more realistic practical demonstration of the benefits (and
> the associated costs and difficulties associated with the
> semantification process) using a range of tools that have been
> developed by the SW community.
> These would include:
> 1) Ontology creation and lifecycle management (e.g. Protégé, OilED,
> OntoEdit, etc.)
> 2) An annotator for constructing mark-up documents from the corpus, or
> marked-up proxy documents (e.g. OntoMat, MnM, etc.).
> 3) A means for capturing and representing axioms or rules which
> formalize useful inferences in the domain (e.g. using the above).
> 4) An interface that invites the construction of queries (e.g. plugins
> for the above).
> 5) An accessible query engine which will handle querying and inferencing
> (using the axioms/rules) and present the result in a useful way.
> We have done our best to identify - from the hundreds of applications
> available  those which: (i) work reliably (ii) have compatible inputs
> and outputs (iii) can be *used* and understood by end information
> users (we are not programmers!).
> Despite our efforts we are having remarkably little success. On the one
> hand we are overwhelmed by the amount of information that is available
> on Semantic Web topics, on the other we have found that much of the
> information is completely inscrutable.
> Fundamentally our questions are: Is it that the tools which we require
> are simply too immature (or dont yet exist) or that substantially more
> technical expertise is needed to use what is available than can be
> reasonably expected from information users?
> Comments or help in answering these questions from the Semantic Web
> community would be much appreciated.
> Thank you,
> Mansur Darlington and Al Lowe
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Innovative Manufacturing Research Centre
> Department of Mechanical Engineering
> University of Bath
> UK
Received on Sunday, 15 February 2004 13:58:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:47 UTC