Pat Cassidy wrote: (01)
>I haven't tested Protege beta 3.0 yet. Since I have
>very limited time to work on this, I plan to do only the
>programming required to get the data from a SKIF file into
>Protege in a form where it will be easier to view and comprehend
>than in a bare KIF text file, while retaining all the logical information.
My concern was only that your work have the longest practical life.
Having raised the concern that 2.1 may be soon be unsupported, I leave it
to you to judge how to proceed. (03)
> There is also the question of the Protege-OWL model, which is
>another can of worms. I am primarily interested in the content, not
>the format of the representation, and need to concentrate on that.
>If and when OWL really becomes a standard -- official or de facto -- I will
>certainly want to accommodate that, but by that time it may look different
>from its present form. If I do any format-morphing into OWL, I will want
>to do it once.
OWL *is* an official standard, having been a W3C Recommendation since February
of this year (W3C is a recognized standard organization and a Recommendation
is the culmination of an iterative and open consensus building process).
Furthermore, neither OWL nor RDF are going to go through any major changes
anytime soon. Minor changes to better support user defined datatypes and
ranges may occur in the next year or two. Other then that, I would neither
worry nor hold hope. But these points are mute, I think. As I understand it,
what is important to you and to Ontolog is the expressivity of FOL. OWL
doesn't have that-- now or probably ever. The SW may, but not anytime soon. (05)
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 (06)