"both in one" is a very rare case. Knowledge keeper does not know XML, RDF, Sparql, OWL and other funny things. And she is right. But she does not know FOL. It's a pity;-)
Programmer usually knows only these funny things.
But he does not know FOL as well. It's a shame;-)
Anyway everybody has some knowledge to share. And how many knowledge programmers do we have right now?
Before, we had knowledge guru with their enigmatic Knowledge Base Management Systems.
And SW has at least one merit: now any programmer can write ontology. Well, it's too much:-)
With CNL any plodding knowledge keeper can;-) Is any narrative text is an ontology, at least a factology (aka A-box)?
With Simple English we have more interesting situation: many type of text may be simplified grammatically without to loose or corrupt a knowledge. And still being readable. A problem is that between CNL-statement and a formula from some logical theory there is a gap:
we should know exactly which theory she keeps in mind (so named context), i.e. transformation is not universal. That rules of "translation" are theory specific.
For many areas we still do not have theory itself.
Theory as a system of definitions at least.
PS а за пределами форума можно пообщаться и на русском. буду рад:-)
Surely there is a distinction to be made between what is
modeled and what it is modeled in. Changing the syntax or the presentation is
not the same as changing the content of the model, and in the end a model is
either a model of something in the problem domain or a model of a (usually
On 08/11/2010 08:14, Alex Shkotin
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
We have 5(!) syntaxes for OWL 2. I think none of
them for end user. These are for a new kind of programmers: knowledge
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
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
Even for knowledge interchange it may be better to have
CNL. Do we need a standard for CNL?
> Even if Martin only published GoodRelations in RDF/XML
format, > the conceptual schema isn't inextricably to RDF
Yes. That's the point I was trying to
Nobody develops alternatives to good notations.
The fact that there are so many variations is a sign that the
edict to make the XML serialization the normative version was a
People constantly say "Oh, you don't have to use it if
you don't like it." But making the XML serialization the
normative version is a terrible example of a premature optimization in
favor of the semantically least important and most trivial
The first step toward a rational reconstruction of the
Semantic Web is to demote the XML serialization of the languages to a
legacy status. Then sponsor a design competition for better