RE: DAML+OIL editors

We at the WOSE (http://java-emporium.com/WOSE) project at Embry Riddle
University chose Protégé. Primarily because of its stable and customizable
(not to forget friendly) user interface. The FacT Reasoner runs well and the
OKBC tab allows us  to access the ontology library at Stanford (specifically
ontolingua KBs). There is work going on in developing a DAML+OIL backend and
we are anxiously awaiting its alpha release soon.


Abir

Abir Qasem
Visiting Professor
Embry-Riddle University
600 S. Clyde Morris Blvd
Daytona Beach FL 32114
Room: LB113
Voice: (386)226-6297
Fax: (386)226-6678
E-Mail: qasem770@db.erau.edu







-----Original Message-----
From: www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Michael Denny
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 6:25 PM
To: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Subject: DAML+OIL editors


I am embarking on an ontology building mission and wish to comply as
thoroughly as possible with the latest DAML+OIL spec (because the consensus
seems to be that this is the leading contender for semantic web adoption).
While several editors like Protégé 2000 (with the OIL plugin), OilEd and
OntoEdit seem to be available with some maturity, I am floundering in trying
to gauge how complete their support of the spec really is.  Can anyone offer
an opinion as to which most fully exploits the DAML+OIL representation, or
where I might encounter deficiencies.  I understand that all these tools are
evolving quickly, and accept that any answer may be fleeting.  Thanks from a
newcomer to your list (the list's archive search doesn't seem to be
working).

I have posted this inquiry to both the www-rdf-logic@w3.org and
www-webont-wg@w3.org lists as I couldn't tell which was the appropriate
one -- my apologies if I'm in the wrong place.

Michael Denny

Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2001 09:26:09 UTC