Re: Bridging the Terminology Gap using OWL ... an exciting example (updated)

Thanks Jim!  You make an excellent point - recognizing that data is NOT
relevant is just as important as recognizing that data IS relevant. 
Your comment about Large-Format cameras not having zoom lenses triggered
an idea for an example.  

Here is a second camera example, which demonstrates the use of the
Camera Ontology for deciding that data is NOT relevant:

    http://www.xfront.com/owl-quick-intro/sld023.htm

Comments, suggestions are (always) appreciated.  /Roger


Jim Farrugia wrote:
> 
> Hi Roger,
> 
> A few comments on your new example.
> 
> * On Slide 21, I don't understand how the Bot determines that the
> aperture value of 4.0-4.5 exceeds the minimum value specified by
> the query (4.5-5.6). Also, I don't know if this issue is important
> to your example. Maybe it's a detail that can be safely handled behind
> the scenes?
> 
> * A similar comment for determining that the shutter speeds match.
> Is this just a string match between the contents of the two "<shutter-speed>"
> tags?
> 
> * I wonder if more OWL features could be used to allow the Bot to truncate
> the search on the basis of the desired features expressed in the query and
> the camera hierarchy given on Slide 19.
> 
> For instance, it's not the case (or, we can suppose for the sake of
> argument that it's not the case) that there exist any 75-300mm zoom
> lenses for large-format cameras. There may be no zoom lenses at all for
> large-format cameras. If there are, one could quickly come up with a
> range of possible focal lengths for such zooms. Maybe think kind of
> knowledge about zooms for large-format cameras could be encoded into OWL?
> (I really don't know; I haven't studied OWL carefully enough even to
> hazard a guess).
> 
> If it could, then when the Bot finds stores with "Large-Format" instead
> of "SLR", it would know that although "Large-Format" is a kind of camera,
> the request 75-300 zoom lenses is out of range. So, then the Bot could
> truncate its search more quickly. ??
> 
> * Oh, and please consider all the photography comments I sent you to be
> issued with a standard disclaimer on their truth or appropriateness. I think
> they're all accurate, but, well, it was late and ... :-)
> 
> Jim
> 
> > Hi Folks,
> >
> > I have updated the camera example using information that I received from
> > Jim Farrugia (thanks Jim!).  Here is the updated example:
> >
> >     http://www.xfront.com/owl-quick-intro/sld015.htm

Received on Monday, 7 April 2003 10:13:27 UTC