Chris Mungall said" (01)
[CM] > Maybe the question should be can semantic web technologies be brought
into the fold of CL?
>
> Advantages/disadvantages: CL is more expressive than RDF or OWL. RDF and
OWL currently have more libraries, tools, support, mindshare, persistent
stores, etc than CL. What's more important for your application? As far as
>interoperability is concerned there's well-defined mappings between these
languages. (02)
I would like to find a program that actually **translates** OWL into CL.
Does anyone know of such a program? (03)
Pat Cassidy
Cassidy@xxxxxxxxx (04)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris Mungall
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 11:24 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] RDF and XML (05)
Maybe the question should be can semantic web technologies be brought into
the fold of CL? (06)
Advantages/disadvantages: CL is more expressive than RDF or OWL. RDF and OWL
currently have more libraries, tools, support, mindshare, persistent stores,
etc than CL. What's more important for your application? As far as
interoperability is concerned there's well-defined mappings between these
languages. (07)
As CL is already an ISO standard I'm not sure what the advantages of
championing it through the W3C process would be. If you are interested in
participating in the CL 2.0 process there is a mailing list -
http://philebus.tamu.edu/mailman/listinfo/cl (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)
|