[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Interpreting OWL

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:45:39 -0400
Message-id: <4CBC95D3.7060304@xxxxxxxxxxx>
I agree with Ed's characterization of all the interrelationships
of the many, many notations.  My short summary:    (01)

  1. There are a huge number of ad hoc declarative notations, all
     of which have only one thing in common:  they are subsets
     of first-order logic, usually with some special-purpose
     built-in ontology and a methodology for using it.    (02)

  2. For any two notations X and Y, it is often possible to find
     a mapping of some subset of X to some subset of Y, but no
     guarantee that the methodology and ontologies designed for X
     are compatible with those of Y.    (03)

  3. RDF is compatible with almost all of them because it is
     a lowest-common-denominator subset of all of them.    (04)

  4. But RDF has a bloated, unreadable notation that even its
     designer (Tim Bray) disowned, and nearly everybody invents
     some special-purpose way of saying or writing (A B C).    (05)

What got us into this mess is that people said "Oooh, FOL is
too hard to learn."  So everybody invented a different notation
for writing some version of it, and nobody gave any thought
to how their version related to anybody else's.    (06)

For further commentary on these issues, see    (07)

    Integrating Semantic Systems    (08)

John    (09)

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    (010)

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