|From:||Adrian Walker <adriandwalker@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:11:33 -0500|
I would also like to ask OWL advocates about those popular ontologies
whose only "definitions" are English phrases marked as comments.
This is a long standing gap in the semantics of OWL-style ontologies. There's significant meaning in the comments -- meaning that is completely ignored in computation.
Slides 3-12 of  illustrate this problem further, and the remaining slides suggest a solution.
Cheers, -- Adrian
Internet Business Logic
A Wiki and SOA Endpoint for Executable Open Vocabulary English Q/A over SQL and RDF
Online at www.reengineeringllc.com
Shared use is free, and there are no advertisements
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 9:37 AM, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The field of terminology standardizes terms that are used by large
_________________________________________________________________ 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 (01)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Terminology and Knowledge Engineering, Michael Brunnbauer|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Terminology and Knowledge Engineering, David Eddy|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Terminology and Knowledge Engineering, John F. Sowa|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Terminology and Knowledge Engineering, Ed Barkmeyer|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|