What, then, is the best alternative to OWL and triple-based languages in general for processing semantic information about the world?
"John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Gary,
In what way "humbling"?
> Pretty enlightening and humbling to see the categories > in this understandable graphic.
OWL is a very simple language, which just represents triples. The elements of those triples may be uninterpreted strings or pointers to combinations of triples that ultimately reduce to uninterpreted strings.
In choosing OWL (and many other languages), people are following a time-honored principle that has dominated the choice of computer languages and systems for the past 50 years:
If you have a problem that you don't fully understand, choose a system that you don't fully
understand and hope that it will magically solve the problem.
This is called a "hope-based approach". It is the foundation for many projects, which I shall not name.
John
_________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01)
|