DAML-S Ontologies inconsistencies??

Hi All.

I looked at the DAML-S version
0.6 and noticed what might
seem to be inconsistencies in
the way that these ontologies
are expressed.
Apart from the fact that the
BravoAir and Congo ontologies
are not displayed correctly by
IE, due to some syntax errors
that they contain, they are
somewhat defined differently.
In the BravoAir process
ontology there is an instance
definition for the service
process which the CongoBuy
process does not define. Also
in the BravoAir definition
there is a reference to
topLevelProcess and to
isImplementedBy constructs.
Where are these defined in the
Service ontologies?
And why is it that these
examples still use rdfs:Class
and not the daml:Class which
is now correctly used in the
base ontologies?

I was hoping that this new
version would bring about some
kind of standardization in the
way that these WS ontologies
are expressed, but it seems
that there still remains
ambiguity in the way one can
define these ontologies.
Correct me, if I'm wrong.

With the advent of the OWL
language it seems that
interest is getting lost in
DAML and derivatives. Should
people place the semantic web
idea on the hold and wait for
this new language to hopefully
surface?

Charlie

Received on Saturday, 16 February 2002 10:40:05 UTC