David, (01)
As I said, semantic systems should support the semantics of "everything
and anything" that anybody has found useful. Since many people find
the Semantic Web tools to be useful, we must support them. But I also
believe that semantic technology won't grow until we provide tools that
people find easy to learn and use. (02)
> SysML is a tool designed for
> use by systems engineers, not chemists, and OWL is a language for use by
> ontologists and software developers. A more accurate comparison would be
> to have them design something 'engineery' in SysML vs SQL or the SysML
> meta-model or OWL. Few, if any, systems engineering applications would
> present OWL to an engineer as OWL. (03)
The question of what you call a language or who you designed it for
is totally irrelevant. Adam and Eve didn't intend their language to
be used for modern science, but with a few new words, it can be used
for that purpose. Note how the Israelis adapted biblical Hebrew. (04)
> OWL is just plumbing no discipline engineer would ever see, unless your
> discipline happens to be ontology/software engineering and so you're
> working directly with the pipes. (05)
I'm happy with that distinction. Since UML is widely used for
software engineering, your company could get more customers if you
adopt UML as the front end and translate it to OWL. (06)
> Users of an ontology-based application, be it based in OWL or
> HOL, would likely never have that fact made visible to them. (07)
Every application is based on an ontology of the subject matter.
The only question is whether that ontology is represented explicitly
or implicitly. (08)
> We should remember that ontologies are the tail, not the dog, and
> the goal is to provide a way for software projects to produce better,
> more semantically accurate applications. (09)
Ontology is not the tail. It's the heart and soul of every design.
What we're trying to tell people is that they can create better
designs if they make the ontology explicit. (010)
> It's the applications that typically bring business value though,
> not the ontology. (011)
On that we can agree. (012)
John (013)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2012/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2012
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (014)
|