Sean, (01)
What I have been recommending is not necessarily an alternative,
but a superset: (02)
> What, then, is the best alternative to OWL and triple-based
> languages in general for processing semantic information about
> the world? (03)
Common Logic, for example, is a superset of the semantics of
RDF and OWL. That's not surprising, since Pat Hayes, who worked
on the official W3C semantics of RDF and OWL, also worked to make
the semantics of CL upward compatible with RDF and OWL. (04)
That means that anything expressed in RDF or OWL can be mapped
into CL. Following is a diagram that shows the mappings: (05)
http://www.jfsowa.com/figs/comlog.gif (06)
At the center is Common Logic, which is now in the Final Draft
stage of an ISO standard (FDIS). For a copy (and for related
discussion), see (07)
http://common-logic.org (08)
On the machine interface side are RDF(S) and OWL, which can be
mapped to and from a subset of CL. But many other logic-oriented
notations can also be mapped to and from CL. (09)
At the human-interface side are various controlled natural languages
on the left and various diagramming notations on the right. One of
the diagramming conventions is Concept Mapping, which happens to be
the notation used in COE for mapping to and from OWL and RDF. (010)
And by the way, I agree with Rick Murphy's response on this same thread. (011)
John (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
|
