[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] ANN: GoodRelations Annotator 2.0 + New Webcast

To: martin.hepp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:01:05 -0500
Message-id: <4AFF52D1.1090109@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Dear Martin,    (01)

Thanks for the URLs to the primer and the slides, which point
directly to the documents without the requirement for registering
or filling out a survey.    (02)

I agree that sharing the information is good.  And I think that the
categories you're defining in the GoodRelations ontology are very
useful.  But I had some comments (see below).    (03)

MH> I fail to see, however, why helping people to populate one of the
 > few serious Web ontologies could be anywhere near the four letter
 > word used in your mail.    (04)

I was annoyed by the URL that required a survey and registration:    (05)

JFS> I clicked on the URL in your message, and it sent me to
 > a long query form that asked me to fill out all sorts of
 > information about my business.    (06)

I didn't accuse you of spam, but I apologize for using the word
in close association:    (07)

JFS> That is typical of business SPAM.  It is not typical of
 > R & D people who are sharing information.    (08)

And I agree that the work on developing the Goodrelations ontology
is important.  But we need higher-level tools that avoid forcing
ontologists to read and write RDF and OWL.  Even N3 is too low.    (09)

Example from http://www.heppnetz.de/projects/goodrelations/primer/    (010)

> default:Amazon
>       a gr:BusinessEntity ;
>       rdfs:comment "Amazon"^^xsd:string ;
>       rdfs:seeAlso <http://www.amazon.com> ;
>       gr:hasDUNS "884745530"^^xsd:string ;
>       gr:legalName "Amazon Inc."^^xsd:string .    (011)

What the ontologists should read and write is something like:    (012)

    Amazon Inc. has the DUNS number 884745530.    (013)

That should *also* be the "machine readable" form.    (014)

I like the RDF diagram in Figure 1.  But I object to the comment that
distinguishes it from "machine readable" code.  Since the diagram was
generated by machine, it is just as formal as anything else.    (015)

Ontologists should see diagrams like Figure 1 and controlled English
(or other natural languages).  That was the point of the slides:    (016)

    http://www.jfsowa.com/cnl4ss.pdf    (017)

Ontologists from Aristotle through the middle ages to the early 20th
century were using controlled Greek, Latin, Arabic, etc.  It is not
a sign of progress to force them to use things like RDF and OWL.    (018)

A primer on C doesn't teach the students assembly language.  A primer
on Java doesn't teach them Java byte codes.  RDF and OWL should be
just as deeply hidden as assembly language or Java byte codes.
Making byte codes slightly prettier (as N3 does) is not sufficient.    (019)

John    (020)

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    (021)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>