[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-forum] Re: [regrep-cc-review] What if? CCRIM => CCOWL

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 16:28:13 -0800
Message-id: <3FF4BB1D.2020009@xxxxxxxx>
Forwarding ...    (01)

Chiusano Joseph wrote Thu, 01 Jan 2004 18:24:06 -0500:    (02)

> Happy New Year,    (03)

> In terms of OWL and DAML+OIL, OWL "OWL is a revision of the DAML+OIL web
> ontology language incorporating lessons learned from the design and
> application of DAML+OIL." [1]    (04)

> Regarding what technologies are currently in the same general category
> of OWL, there are: Topic Maps, RDF, DAML+OIL, and OWL-S for Semantic Web
> Services (in its very early stages).     (05)

> There is also RuleML, which is "about rule interoperation between
> industry standards (such as JSR 94, SQL'99, OCL, BPMI, WSFL, XLang,
> XQuery, RQL, OWL, DAML-S, and ISO Prolog) as well as established systems
> (CLIPS, Jess, ILOG JRules, Blaze Advisor, Versata, MQWorkFlow, BizTalk,
> Savvion, etc.)." [2]    (06)

> Regarding OWL and Topic Maps: Lars Marius Garshol of Ontopia published a
> paper [3] (not dated but I'm quite sure it was written in 2002) titled
> "Living with topic maps and RDF" that you might find interesting.
> Although not about OWL, since OWL extends RDF some of the findings may
> be applicable to OWL as well. The paper's conclusion:    (07)

> <Conclusion>
> The key lessons are that:     (08)

> - Merging the two technologies does not appear desirable or possible.    (09)

> - It is possible to convert data back and forth between the two
> representations using simple, declarative, vocabulary-specific mappings.    (010)

> - This makes it possible for RDF and topic maps to have shared
> vocabularies.    (011)

> - RDF constraints can be converted to topic map constraints given such a
> mapping.    (012)

> - Semantic annotations in OWL can be translated directly into a topic
> map representation of the same information. That is, the descriptive
> part of OWL can be used both with RDF and with topic maps.    (013)

> - It is possible to create a single query language for both RDF and
> topic maps.    (014)

> In short, it does appear that it is possible to live with both RDF and
> topic maps. 
> </Conclusion>    (015)

> Regarding OAGI's Semantic Integration Working Group (on Yahoo!): I've
> just joined this group, which I've been meaning to do for weeks. I'll be
> happy to help as liaison between the groups (I understand that Monica
> Martin is on this OAGI listserv as well). Thanks for the suggestion,
> Jamie.    (016)

> Kind Regards,
> Joe    (017)

> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/
> [2] http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/ruleml/
> [3] http://www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/materials/tmrdf.html    (018)

> Farrukh Najmi wrote:
>>James Bryce Clark wrote:
>>>    1.  Has OWL become the consensus methodology?
>>That is my sense that OWL is the consensus for Ontology definition.
>>>Has DAML+OIL satisfactorily converged with it?
>>Yes. AFAIK, OWL supersedes DAML+OWL.
>>>Are topic maps out of the running?
>>Some say you need both Topic Maps and OWL, though I cannot understand
>>why. In my mind OWL supersedes Topic Maps..
>>OWL is RDF. It is a dialect of RDF.
>>>I had the impression at XML2003 that there are still multiple
>>>plausible parallel paths here.
>>There are always multiple paths to every destination even if some are
>>filled with cob-webs and hurdles. OWL seems to me to be the path that
>>will survive.
>>>Obviously one high-level design issue for ebXML is potential
>>>catholicity among tools and specifications.  Putting it differently,
>>>is "choosing" OWL a significant compatibility or vendor-alignment issue?
>>I propose an incremental strategy for adding OWL support as an optional
>>feature initially. This will allow vendors and users to keep pace with
>>the evolving standard.
>>>    If you go down this path, I've also had chats with other semantic
>>>methods experts that might be worth pinging.
>>Please send me your thoughts on who we should ping. I see the need for
>>coordination with the proposed RDF Data Access WG most urgently as I see
>>significant overlap between their proposed charter and that of the
>>proposed Semantic Content Management SC of ebXML Registry.
>>>    2.  Have you followed the possible cognate work in [ontolog-forum]
>>>(where I think at least Farrukh is a subscriber) or OAGI's Semantic
>>>Integration Working Group?
>>I have not been following either too closely but plan to get more
>>involved with ontolog forum starting now.
>>>    Warm regards and happy new year   Jamie
>>Happy new year to you and all my dear colleagues.
>>Farrukh    (019)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (020)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>