On 11/10/12 3:32 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
> On 11/012 6:07 PM, Martin Hepp wrote:
>> Effective immediately, the full GoodRelations vocabulary for e-commerce
>> (http://purl.org/goodrelations/) is now directly available from schema.org,
>> the official library of data schemas maintained and promoted by the four
>> biggest Web search engines, i.e. Google, Bing, Yahoo, and Yandex.
> Congratulations! This is an important step toward bringing ontologies
> into the mainstream of IT.
> I'd also like to point out that the representation of GoodRelations
> in OWL is still available, but that Schema.org supports only the tiny
> subset of OWL that most people actually use:
> From http://wiki.goodrelations-vocabulary.org/Cookbook/Schema.org
>> GoodRelations will include mapping axioms so that an RDF environment
>> with minimal reasoning support (rdfs:subclassOf, rdfs:subPropertyOf,
>> owl:equivalentClass, owl:equivalentProperty, owl:sameAs) can operate
>> on the data purely from the GoodRelations namespace.
> This is a minimal amount of logic that is compatible with almost
> anything, including the legacy systems that have been successfully
> interoperating for the past 50 years.
> Fundamental principles:
> 1. Schema.org hits a very simple "sweet spot" in knowledge
> representation that programmers and other IT professionals
> can immediately understand without any special training.
> 2. It is sufficiently underspecified that it does not create
> any conflicts with more specialized languages and systems,
> either declarative or procedural.
> 3. Instead of URIs or IRIs that point to unreadable and unread
> definitions somewhere on the WWW, Schema.org uses readable
> names that are self-defining (or nearly so).
> By comparison, OWL hits a "sour spot" in knowledge representation:
> 1. Nobody can use OWL without a training course or an extended
> amount of self study. Even the very limited subset that most
> people use has stumbling blocks that are inconsistent with
> the conventions that programmers and webmasters know and use.
> 2. Going beyond that limited subset requires a great deal
> of further study, and anything specified in the superset
> will not be automatically mapped into the mainstream
> programming languages. In other words, it's useless.
> 3. Using unreadable URIs or IRIs destroys readability. Users do
> not want to and will never go to some remote location to study
> a cryptic definition in some unreadable notation with some
> unnecessarily complicated syntactic conventions.
> 4. Finally, OWL is so limited in its expressive power that it
> cannot be used by itself to implement applications. For any
> practical application, OWL is always used in conjunction with
> a more expressive, undecidable, Turing-complete language.
> Forcing OWL itself to be decidable is of no practical value.
> There is a need for more expressive power in logic-based languages.
> The SQL WHERE-clause shows that programmers are willing and able
> to learn and use a query language with the full expressive power
> of first-order logic. Various kinds of rule-based languages
> show that people are able to learn and use the Horn-clause
> subset of logic in practical applications.
> Recommendation: Schema.org is the wave of the future. Any work on
> formal ontologies and the Semantic Web should embrace and build on
> the simple versions specified in Schema.org. I recommend that the
> W3C should work with Schema.org to make it an integral part of the
> SW strategy.
> John Sowa (01)
Recommendation has been long accepted. The W3C does work with Schema.org :-) (03)
> 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
Founder & CEO
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen (07)
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
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)