Results as at Mon 18-Nov-2002 00:00

A total of 11 responses were received. They were from:

Joe Rudnicki
Mike Daconta
Peter Yim
Adam Pease
Sue Probert
Monica Martin
Bob Smith
Adam Cheyer
Leo Obrst
Pat Cassidy, &
Farruhk Najmi

How do you feel about:
   Our site supporting an ontology repository?

Choice     Count     Percent
Yes             10         90.9%
Maybe         1            9.1%
No               0            0.0%

    Our site supporting a Web-enabled ontology tool (for developing ontologies)?

Choice    Count     Percent
Yes          10           90.9%
No             1             9.1%

None of the above. Note a good idea, because: (or reservations/remarks)

Sample Answering: 3 responses --

Look at what is available without reinventing the wheel

You may want to consider having a tool hints/help/advise section in addition to 1 a) and/or b).

Great idea -- as long as it is user-friendly, otherwise you may just want to accept uploads from other tools like Protege or OntoEdit.


Ontology tool I use/am familiar with - Ontology tool I use/am familiar with

Sample Answering: 7 responses --

Protege; SemTalk; OntoEdit

OntoBuilder, Protege


OILed, Protege, OntoEdit, etc.

Have used ORM

We use Protege.



Can you characterize the tools: i.e., Web-enabled, ontology languages supported, cost/licensing, POCs, experience, etc.

Sample Answering: 5 responses


1. Client/Server, Java-based, XOL, Verticalnet Proprietary 2. Client-based, open source, Java, free.

protege is not web based

These are all free. OntoEdit non-demo can be purchased for about $895.

ORM is listed under Visio at http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/11/06/ontologies.html . I have always liked it. VisioModeler uses ORM and is available unsupported at http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/release.asp?ReleaseID=27489  . The supported version of ORM is in Visio Enterprise (see http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/techinfo/articles/developerproductivity/orm.asp ) as part of Visual Studio .NET Enterprise Architect Edition. Visual Studio .NET Enterprise Architect cost about $2.5K. To my knowledge, none of these tools are Web enabled. ORM has tended to be used to develop relational databases even though constraints, etc. are often lost in the process or have to be implemented procedurally.


Do you know of a tool provider who might support such a public
effort, hosted on our site?
 - Candidate provider

Sample Answering: 4 non-negative responses

Verticalnet - wait till closure auction


There's an open source tool for browsing KIF-based theories at with download at http://ontology.teknowledge.com. It's free.

Protege is open source.


Sample Answering: 8 responses

Which ontology languages (knowledge representation languages) should be the standard(s) for the ontologies? (Some examples: Ontolingua/KIF, Common Logic, OKBC, CycL, RDF/S, DAML+OIL, OWL, etc.)

Sample Answering: 7 responses

OWL, (Depends on MARKET FEATURES ELABORATED and tested in some mechanism)



KIF and Common Logic (the new ISO KIF) are the most expressive. OKBC is mostly equivalent to KIF. OWL will be the top Semantic Web ontology language.

Unless you want a lossy translation, you'll have to use the most expressive language, like KIF. If you try to express a KIF theory in DAML, all the rules are lost.

May be too many languages available to make a choice. You probably have to let the market decide.

Not being familiar with the subtle differences between the languages -- I would say the safest bet is RDF/S, DAML+OIL and OWL.

Additional Comments?

Sample Answering: 7 responses

Wish we had some opportunity to discuss some logistic issues at the Santae Fe Open Session in January.

Let's have a glossary to easily understand, yet more acronyms for semantics....hmmmm.

Just an observer's comments. I am afraid I am too ignorant of the technical aspects to offer more but I continue to be interested in the results.

great idea!

Having all ontologies expressed in the same language would be a great start. People continually reinvent the same ontologies in different languages. Once that is done, some serious work can start at comparing and integrating existing ontologies. That's the approach we took to create the initial versions of SUMO

On whether our site should support an ontology repository, my answer is "maybe".

Great idea ...  How would this repository differ from the DAML+OIL ontology listings on the DAML site?

Prepared by:  Peter Yim / 18-Nov-2002 00:22
Updated : ppy/01-Dec-2002 00:18