|From:||Alex Shkotin <alex.shkotin@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Mon, 8 Nov 2010 11:14:23 +0300|
as XML, RDF are data models and ways for information coding, it is not for users but for programmers.
XML is accepted by programmers for their needs.
Internal structure of SW is a programmers deal.
We have 5(!) syntaxes for OWL 2. I think none of them for end user.
These are for a new kind of programmers: knowledge coders;-)
And as usual for end user we need forms to fulfill, manage and query knowledge.
It seems one additional "user interface" we may get now is a very simple CNL.
We get it while verbalizing RDB data, for ex. And for me it is better than "metadata", as end user can write CNL.
We have know spellcheckers working background when we type.
It would be crucial step forward for the web to have a background CNL checker the user accept.
Not everybody but who'd like to type knowledge;-)
Even for knowledge interchange it may be better to have CNL.
Do we need a standard for CNL?
2010/11/7 John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
_________________________________________________________________ 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:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Breaking News: Google supports GoodRelations, Kingsley Idehen|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Breaking News: Google supports GoodRelations, Mike Bennett|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Breaking News: Google supports GoodRelations, Kingsley Idehen|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Fwd: Breaking News: Google supports GoodRelations, Mike Bennett|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|