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."  (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.)."  (06)
> Regarding OWL and Topic Maps: Lars Marius Garshol of Ontopia published a
> paper  (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)
> 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)
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/
>  http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/ruleml/
>  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
>>>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.
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)