On 12/6/2011 1:32 PM, AzamatAbdoullaev wrote:
> The schema.org's team has chosen popular promises, shirking all sorts of
> "intellectualese" as ontology, formal logic, etc: "be simple, and the web
> masses will follow you." (01)
The vocabulary for schema.org is more like WordNet. It a taxonomy
of useful terms, but it should not be considered an ontology. (02)
It is also similar to other things such as GoodRelations, which
also has a vocabulary of useful terms. Both of them are at about
the same level. The fact that one uses OWL and the other doesn't
is irrelevant. (03)
> Many issues (with smart web applications and semantic web technologies) are
> coming from the lack of commitment to a common ontology, as a universal,
> referenceable system of meanings, a guarantee of consistency, completeness
> and understanding, serving as a solid foundation for
> data/information/knowledge indexing, metatagging, retrieval, and
> communicating. (04)
It is impossible to have a consistent, universal ontology of every
possible way of thinking by everybody on the planet. (05)
It might be possible to have a single universal consistent ontology
of the way God sees the universe. But his revelations -- at least
the ones that have been handed down to us -- tend to be rather
enigmatic and incomplete. (06)
So we just have to muddle through with the best we can get from
science. And the task of science is very incomplete. (07)
John (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|