Re: SW-Mapping to OOP Model
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 13:54:47 +0530, Garfield <xmlstar@g...> wrote: > Hi All, > Thanks for the overflowing information on the Semantic Web, and its > mysteries. Seems to be demystified for the most part of it. > Seems to be demystified for the most part of it. Well, I > had another thought in my mind, which I thought worthwhile sharing > with you folks. > Are there mappings defined between the Semantic Web and Programming Models ? <snip>interesting discussion on what this might mean</snip> Hi Garfield, it seems to me you're circling the questions of "even if you have (global) knowledge discovery mechanisms (the enabling pieces of the Semantic Web) how are you going to exploit them"? In particular, you describe: > This looks similar to a Javadoc that describes what a class can do, > what operations it supports, and what are its fields. What I am asking > for something more than a documentation, but a more formal definition. Which I think is the issue of the exchange of common semantics. I can't offer any specific answers for these issues. (The usual, go look at expert/rules systems, RDF, and of course the whole gamut of WS stuff, applies, but I think you already know that.) However, since some of your points are posed as Java specific you may want to look at JSR 94 and it's kin. As I've suggested before, rules can be treated as exchangeable metadata. Basically, couple rules to terms and Ontology traversal can be treated as a a rules evaluation process: if your rules and my rules both find the same object then the terms the rules map to must be describing the same thing (and here's an instance of an object that is a representation of that thing). What's interesting with this approach is that the object can be local only; run both the foreign rules and the local rules locally to see if they are in agreement, if they are you don't really care what the foreign object might be, you've got a local object that works for you (there's a heavy weight way to isolate viruses!). I don't know if there is any work being done on this approach. We're sort of indirectly attacking things this way, but more from a rules discovery of metadata (which then describes abstract objects) than finding any objects that are directly usable. What might be interesting was if I could turn my abstract objects into something like a Castor description and subsequently de-marshall a real object representation of it. However, I can't see any practical use for this at the moment... -- Peter Hunsberger
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