Re: Roger Costello: My Version of "Why use OWL?"
W. E. Perry wrote: > > Perhaps we should consider a different example. Suppose that an instance > of your SLR is presented to an application for customs duty collection. > The task of that application is not to infer that an SLR is a sort of > camera but to infer that the particular instance presented is an example > of dutiable luxury consumer goods. This application is a valuable use of > the SLR/camera ontology which you are creating, but probably not one > which you expected, nor one which you have provided 'hooks' for in the > ontology you are building. Yet our larger purpose here is to build (and > more abstractly to build the principles for) ontologies distributed > among processing nodes on a worldwide internetwork. OWL has been explicitly designed such that Roger's camera ontology might be extended/incorporated by some other customs ontology. He does not need to provide for "hooks" because the language provides that by design -- OWL is not the first ontology language, what makes it unique in a large part is this feature. In that effort, > harnessing the unique perspective and uniquely expert processing at each > node is the particular value we hope to add by building out the ontology > to worldwide scale. Clearly the customs application cannot function > without its own ontological distinctions between dutiable and > non-dutiable, consumer and industrial goods. Equally clearly we do not > want to burden every camera hobbyist's SLR ontology with the > distinctions which are most crucial to the customs agent. The only > workable way to reconcile those goals, and the only way to build out any > non-trivial ontology to worldwide scale, is to require as a matter of > design that semantics are locally elaborated to fill the local needs of > expert processes. Being local means that these semantics are not shared, > nor understood in some common way. I'd say that OWL's 'solution' does work *and* provides for shared semantics as per the OWL S&AS http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/ e.g. <owl:Class rdf:ID="DutiableItem"> <owl:oneOf rdf:parseType="Literal"> <owl:Thing rdf:resource="http://www.example.org/RogersOntology#camera"/> ... </owl:oneOf> </owl:Class> The above is what puts the "W" in "OWL" Jonathan
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format