2.(a) He wants us all to use a W3C-designed ontology language. Diversity,schmiversity. The W3C universes of discourse shall be THE universes ofdiscourse on the Web. And if you're not interested in any of theW3C-blessed levels of support for logical inferencing, you have littleto contribute to the "Semantic Web", no matter how much you know, orwhat you have to offer.
I am not sure if I would express it quite in these terms, but just to support my (partial I should have said) agreement with the above:
as I (try to) learn how to use the current SW ontology editors, I have come to realise that none of these allows me to create an ontology in any other formalism than OWL,(or RDF), which constitute the boundary of W3C domain of discourse
No, really. Using OWL or RDF does not restrict your domain of discourse at all. That is, it does not restrict what you can write assertions about
: it does not restrict your topics or subject-matter. Not even in the slightest degree. What it does restrict you to, of course, is using OWL or RDF syntax to say what you want to say, and that indeed is a restriction of a sort; but not a restriction to a domain of discourse.
As to that second point: of course, any set of standards amounts to a restriction to use those standards. I fail to see how things could be otherwise, pretty much from the definition of "standard". (Wouldn't you have expected that a "SW ontology editor" would want you to edit ontologies written in a SW standard language? Why else would it be called a SW editor? There are plenty of other ontology editors for ontologies written in other formalisms.) But the W3C is actively trying to extend this set of standard ontology languages, and actively trying to establish links and connections between it and other notations in use on the Web (cf, the active projects to link RDF to HTML, including GRDDL and RDF-A). But it all takes time. If anyone has any ideas on how to improve this situation, everyone will be delighted to hear them.
PS.. It occurs to me that people unfamiliar with logic or philosophy may not realize that "domain of discourse" is a technical term. It means the set of things that a logic or notation is capable of talking about or referring to; or more exactly, the set of such things that it is understood to be talking about in a given interpretation. For example, the domain of discourse of the OWL Wine ontology comprises wines, types of wine, wine-growing regions and few types of taste and color, when that ontology is interpreted in the intended way.
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile