[ontolog-forum] Comparing Ontology Languages (was: Is there something I

[Ali Hashemi <ali.hashemi+ontolog@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ron,

 

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: 

• Expressivity
• Decidability
• Tractability
• Ease of Use for Human Users
• Learning Curve
• Size of User Base
• Easy Mapping to other languages
• Available Tools
• ... etc/ ?

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.

 

Cheers,

Ali

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
more fully formed results if not conclusions.

It appears that there is very little enthusiasm for real work here.
Endless arguments around the edges of each topic seem to be the flavour
of the month. There is very little interest is highlighting areas of
agreement except to buttress some argument against someone else's ideas.

It is clearly a smart group of individuals but it is hard to point to
any achievements in understanding.
Perhaps I am not being completely fair or not following the discussions
closely enough.
I have not seen anyone write "You are completely correct, I was wrong.
Thank you for point out the errors of my ways".

I have seen some very interesting discussions but they central messages
are not being recorded.

 Ron

Azamat wrote:
>
> Pat,
>
> I have to recognize your sophisticated versatility in many other
> sophistical refutations, not only in ad hominen. Sometimes, it is not
> so bad to be a formal logician.
>
>
>
> Once more, "The Forum dedicated itself to some high cause and
> activity, which seems increasingly drenching by offhand
> debates" plainly meant that no need to hotly discuss here such
> extraneous issues as the SW languages. All this stuff, RDF with its
> sequels, OWL with its subsequences, and what next, has been openly
> criticised on the SW forum; since for any unprejudiced mind it is
> plain that the formal languages are conceptually defective as real
> ontologies and could not be the genuine standards.  And here John has
> the big point. But let the dead bury their dead.
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> Let me remind that the whole thread was initiated by Steven Ray with
> the large purpose; it is of use to repeat his message: [We have now
> established the overall objective for this year's ontology summit
> (see:
> _http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2009#nid1Q2F_ )
> and the following conversation breakout suggests itself. What might be
> productive is to have people sign up for one or more of these aspects
> of the problem, with the aim of producing some concrete results and
> recommendations prior to the face-to-face meeting. Specifically:
>
> 1)      Background:
>
> Compilation of existing ontological representations of standards,
> along with their associated definitions – conformance classes, testing
> suites and methodologies
>
> 2)      Participants - identification and outreach:
>
> Organizations that should participate or be represented, e.g. NATO,
> UN/CEFACT, ISO, OAGi, NCBO, OASIS, OMG, …
>
>     3) Technical discussion
>
>                     1. What is the role of an ontology in establishing
> a standard?
>
>                     2. What kind of constraints or rules [standards?]
> should be applied to ontologies that are used to establish a standard?
>
>                     3. What kinds of standards lend themselves to the
> use of ontologies as their representation?
>
>                     4. What ontological languages are best suited to
> represent standards?
>
> 4)      Strategic vision and roadmap
>
>                     Articulating a stretch vision, and the steps
> needed to get there. What do we think information standards are going
> to look like 20 years from now? Who are the movers to get us there?
> Who are the enablers and stakeholders? This is an environment where we
> can be bold.
>
> I encourage everyone to identify themselves with one or more of these
> activities, and we can set up wiki pages to hold the results. Just as
> last year, we will especially need people to synthesize the
> conversations under each of these activities on a wiki page, as we
> proceed. If we divide up these tasks, we can make a significant
> contribution in a short time, without having to abandon our day jobs!
>
> Let's see how much we can accomplish together. ]
>
> Then I suggested: [For the rest 2-3 months, the Forum has time to
> debate and decide on a principal matter: which general world model is
> most fitting to science, arts, technology, commerce and industry, to
> conclude if "Standard Ontology: a single malt or blended".]   I
> propose to avoid digressions, diversions and excursions, if there is a
> serious intention to deliver some outsanding ontology product, or at
> least to give it a good try.
>
>
>
> Azamat Abdoullaev
>
> EIS Encyclopedic Intelligent Systems Ltd
>
> Pahos, Moscow
>
> http://www.eis.com.cy
>
>
>
>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>



_________________________________________________________________
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
 

-- 
(•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) .,., 
_________________________________________________________________
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)