- From: Steve Robertshaw <steve.robertshaw@emorphia.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 15:25:33 +0100
- To: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Sorry Michael, No offence intended by calling you Denny :-( Next Job... I must learn to read properly Steve -----Original Message----- From: www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org [mailto:www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Steve Robertshaw Sent: 24 October 2001 15:13 To: denn@suffolk.lib.ny.us; www-rdf-logic@w3.org Subject: RE: DAML+OIL editors Denny, Notwithstanding the many comments already made by developers on this list, the unfortunate truth is that there is no 'DAML+OIL editor' that will currently do everything that we all would like: power, accuracy, expressiveness, robustness, reliability, etc. I recently heard someone who knows about such things say that if the project were to be mapped into an equivalent phase in the history of procedural programming, then we are at the stage of coding in assembly language. I'm afraid the only way to achieve the full benefit of the expressive powers of DAML+OIL is to become conversant with the DAML formal model and particularly the XML syntax representation of it. It is then possible to build your model in a text editor using the XML syntax, this is NOT as painful as it sounds: honestly! The model can be validated and checked against any of the tools approved for this purpose on the DAML site but I have found that the DAML validator is very easy and efficient. The XML syntax can then be loaded into FaCT and used for reasoning in the normal manner. There are a couple of 'enhanced (XML) editors' that I could recommend but both still require you to know what it is that you are doing; a colleague has used XMLSpy to code up the XML representation but he is currently using the latest version of FORTE (v3 I think) which now supports XML as well as Java... and it's free. DAML+OIL developed in this manner still needs to be validated in the same way as that produced in the 'plain vanilla' text editor. Sorry for the pessimistic tone, Steve -----Original Message----- From: www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org [mailto:www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Michael Denny Sent: 23 October 2001 23:25 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 10:27:00 UTC