Concerning conversion of SKIF files into OWL: (01)
For the moment, what time I have to work on it is, I believe,
best spent taking advantage of the facilities in Protege 2.1, which
will not disappear in future versions. (02)
> Pat Cassidy wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
[Evan Wallace]
>
> 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. (03)
Yes, but Protege-OWL is still in flux. In order to avoid wasting time redoing
programming, I would also like to see stabilization of SWRL and Protege-OWL,
and sufficient evidence of widespread use to justify spending unrecoverable
time on it. For me, a useful "standard" is one used by a wide community and
with inexpensive tools available for using it so that it is accessible to anyone
who could make use of it. OWL is sufficiently verbose and obscure that
I feel certain that some tool will be developed to make it easier to use and
comprehend. Perhaps protege-OWL will serve that purpose, and if that does
become widely used, I will certainly want to be able to move any ontologies
I develop into that format.
But I don't think that any of the existing upper ontologies is likely to
become widely adopted as a standard without significant modification, and
I need to concentrate on building an upper ontology that I think will be
acceptable for widespread use, regardless of the format in which it is
expressed. (04)
The critical and indispensable role of a standard upper ontology, after
all this time, still doesn't seem to be appreciated by the funding
agencies. The main problem with OWL is not inherent in the specification
itself, which has some virtue, but in that the focus on format serves as a
serious distraction from the need to standardize content, which can be done
in any format, including the venerable KIF. The content is where my
main efforts have to be directed. (05)
Pat (06)
--
=============================================
Patrick Cassidy (07)
MICRA, Inc. || (908) 561-3416
735 Belvidere Ave. || (908) 668-5252 (if no answer above)
Plainfield, NJ 07062-2054 (08)
internet: cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
============================================= (09)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (010)
|