|From:||Ali Hashemi <ali.hashemi+ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Fri, 6 Feb 2009 11:52:20 -0500|
It seems that many wiki efforts are hindered at first (if there isn't a critical mass of contributors) because of a lack of structure and inertia.
For example, a lot of the dialogue on the forum the past few days has indirectly explored some of the differences between RDF, RDFS, OWL, OWL-DL, OWL 2 and touched a bit on other languages.
It seems out of this morass of fact and opinion, there is an emerging description of the strenghts of weaknesses of each language and the degree to which one is connected to another. It should be noted that all of this is also available as spec docs or some other form, though dispersed through the internet. You can't simply ask "how do the langauges compare" - one would have to go and dig through various searches and links to develop a similar analysis.
It might perhaps be useful to start a thread about a topic with the expressed intent of making cases for what an entry for said topic should be.
So for example, perhaps in this thread we can begin by discussing what components/properties of a language are of importance to us as knowledge engineers. Through such a process, we might then define a set of criteria that ought to be paid attention to for each language, and this might form a basis for a comparison of these langauges and ultimately to better match languages to problems.
While all this information is out there already, it's dispersed, in the heads of various people, but not "novel" enough to warrant getting a paper published in an academic journal, though bits and pieces of such analyses do make it as parts of other papers.
A wiki seems like a great place for capturing these summations.
On that point, since there is dearth of contribution to the wiki, but much activity on the forum, perhaps one or two people might volunteer per each wiki oriented thread to summarize the past 10-20(?) posts.
If i might get the ball rolling:
Ontology Language candidate criteria:
What other properties are of interest?
How would experts, or those intimately familiar with current languages rate each?
Similarly, another thread on "Comparison of Ontology Approaches" might be useful?
Minute variations / differences in perspective seem to exist depending on the types of problems one is trying to use an ontology to solve / aid in.
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Ron Wheeler <rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I had really hoped that the wiki would help this group to develop some
_________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||[ontolog-forum] FW: RDF & RDFS (was... Is there something I missed?), Sean Barker|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] FW: RDF & RDFS (was... Is there something I missed?), Matthew West|
|Previous by Thread:||[ontolog-forum] FW: RDF & RDFS (was... Is there something I missed?), Sean Barker|
|Next by Thread:||[ontolog-forum] New Book: "Narrative Information", Gian Piero Zarri|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|