Re: [ontolog-forum] unifying layer ?

["Adrian Walker" <adriandwalker@xxxxxxxxx>]

Paola --

Good question.  Somehow a conceptually simpler system has to emerge from all those bits and pieces.

My guess is that, in the long term, a 'clean' rule language, together
with a means for automatically generating SQL and SPARQL from the
rules, will help, while some other bits and pieces are retired because
they are not much used.

Neither SQL nor SPARQL have a fully formal semantics, but this
inconvenient truth can be hidden under a rule language that does have a
rigorous model theory, by means of painstaking design of the generator.

                                                       
Cheers, -- Adrian

Internet Business Logic
A Wiki for Executable Open Vocabulary English
Online at www.reengineeringllc.com    Shared use is free

Adrian Walker
Reengineering

On 8/2/07, paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx <paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx > wrote:

Okay let me rephrase

There is agreement, from what I hear,  that there appears to be little
cohesion between the layers of the semantic cake.

The graphical representation of the current layer cake reference
diagram posted earlier on this list, may provide and overly abstract
simplification of it, so the first step should be investigate in more
detail the actual relationships between the layers, and not just their
simplyfied representation.

Maybe  we just have a picture that does not render justice to reality
to some extent

However we can assume that cohesion between the layers, even when and
if it exists, is not optimized nor systematically expressed nor
represented, and not good enough yet - hence the gaps and some of the
challenges that the semantic web currently faces

Pointers to work that should be taken into account as starting point
here, please?


Then we have some ideas, Azamat's fortocoming meta schema for example
and maybe a couple of previous related efforts started in the past
(and some abandoned?)

Goal is: an UOL (Unifyied Ontology Language), or similar experimental construct

I see this a s giant meta wrapper schema, challenging, but not at all unlikely
I am sure some people think otherwise, so I am interested to hear


Objections? Ideas? Form a team? anyone else intrigued enough to make a move?


--
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
www.mfu.ac.th
*********************************************

_________________________________________________________________
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)