On 7/14/07, Sean McBride <smcbride2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:|
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:
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
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
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.
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 (01)