[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] How de facto standards are created

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:16:15 -0400
Message-id: <51C06BAF.2090109@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On 6/18/2013 9:08 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> but I do think OWL is being treated a little unkindly. I do believe a
> little semantics can go a long way re. usefulness    (01)

I certainly agree with the second sentence.  But the little semantics
that most OWL users actually use does not require anything more than
Aristotle.    (02)

In short, if anybody wants to use OWL because it's a standard, I have
no quarrel.  But for the long term, I believe that the SW will have
to do something similar to what they did in going from full-blown
RDF to the much simpler RDFa combined with something like JSON.    (03)

And I don't mean SKOS.  What I mean is closer to Aristotle, but
it could be called OWLa (where "a" stands for Aristotle or Athena
-- or OWLm, if you prefer Minerva).    (04)

Furthermore, it's essential for the SW to dump that totally irrelevant
and hopelessly misleading buzzword "decidability".    (05)

John    (06)

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    (07)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>