RE: types of OWL

Hey guys,


I've been working on a Peer-to-Peer application that shares metadata or 
semantics about shared resources as well as the resources themselves. Besides 
basic inference capabilities offered by platforms such as HP's JENA, I fail to 
see real value being added by Semantic Web technologies to web applications.

How far are we away from seeing a real difference being made by Semantic Web 
technologies?

I would also be interested to hear peoples opinions about the suitability of 
such technologies for ad-hoc configuration in mobile networks.


Regards,


Rory..






>===== Original Message From ewallace@cme.nist.gov =====
>Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>
>
>>> "OWL Lite" goes
>>> further in
>>> that direction, by ommiting some constructs known to be tough to work with
>>> using DL techniques.
>>>
>>
>>From a reasoner's point of view OWL Lite is not that much lighter than OWL
>>DL (in fact some of the hardest of the OWL Test Cases are in the 'harder OWL
>>Lite' section, where I was perverse to give implementors a challenge).
>>
>>The distinguishing feature that makes Lite, Lite (in my view) is that from
>>the point of a view of a *person* trying to understand (or write) an
>>ontology it is easier (unless people have been perverse, and expressed
>>ontologies which conceptually should be in OWL DL, but can be coded up into
>>OWL Lite).
>
>I respectfully disagree.
>
>The design principle we agreed to for OWL Lite was ease of implementation.
>In the end though, the difference between DL and Lite really only seems
>significant for DL reasoners.  Lite is not a significantly simpler language
>to learn, and I can't see how maxCardinality 2 is any harder to understand or
>write then maxCardinality 0 or 1.  These days, I don't even think about Lite,
>but I am often asking myself if my OWL is still DL.
>
>-Evan

><((((º>

Received on Friday, 2 April 2004 18:19:45 UTC