(Of course, there are relative arguments. If someone wanted to work with SHIF ontologies, I would not recommend that they use KRSS syntax instead of OWL RDF/XML syntax…the latter has advantages solely from it being a standard even though, in many ways it’s a technical PITA.)

I don’t think I said that “representing and reasoning with partial information” is the application, just that (for certain ranges) that’s what OWL does well, so any app (e.g., configuration) which requires that is a good candidate for OWL.

People regularly ask for more expressive power (e.g., OWL 1.1)...so I don’t see your point. Obviously, if you can’t represent something in OWL due to some other limitation (e.g., you need role value maps) then OWL doesn’t help you, but I don’t think I suggested otehrwise.

Also, I’m not trying to distinguish OWL from other similar logics, but OWL from e.g., “webized Datalog” or XML. Where does the particularly expressivity help? What is it good for, in general? Of course, I appeal to traditional DL applications, because those are known. We can see how something like OWL would help with them.

I’m not trying to speculate…I’m trying to help people acquire a concrete understanding of what you could sensibly use OWL for.

(Of course, there are relative arguments. If someone wanted to work with SHIF ontologies, I would not recommend that they use KRSS syntax instead of OWL RDF/XML syntax…the latter has advantages solely from it being a standard even though, in many ways it’s a technical PITA.)

I don’t think I said that “representing and reasoning with partial information” is the application, just that (for certain ranges) that’s what OWL does well, so any app (e.g., configuration) which requires that is a good candidate for OWL.

People regularly ask for more expressive power (e.g., OWL 1.1)...so I don’t see your point. Obviously, if you can’t represent something in OWL due to some other limitation (e.g., you need role value maps) then OWL doesn’t help you, but I don’t think I suggested otehrwise.

Also, I’m not trying to distinguish OWL from other similar logics, but OWL from e.g., “webized Datalog” or XML. Where does the particularly expressivity help? What is it good for, in general? Of course, I appeal to traditional DL applications, because those are known. We can see how something like OWL would help with them.

I’m not trying to speculate…I’m trying to help people acquire a concrete understanding of what you could sensibly use OWL for.

(Of course, there are relative arguments. If someone wanted to work with SHIF ontologies, I would not recommend that they use KRSS syntax instead of OWL RDF/XML syntax…the latter has advantages solely from it being a standard even though, in many ways it’s a technical PITA.)

I don’t think I said that “representing and reasoning with partial information” is the application, just that (for certain ranges) that’s what OWL does well, so any app (e.g., configuration) which requires that is a good candidate for OWL.

People regularly ask for more expressive power (e.g., OWL 1.1)...so I don’t see your point. Obviously, if you can’t represent something in OWL due to some other limitation (e.g., you need role value maps) then OWL doesn’t help you, but I don’t think I suggested otehrwise.

Also, I’m not trying to distinguish OWL from other similar logics, but OWL from e.g., “webized Datalog” or XML. Where does the particularly expressivity help? What is it good for, in general? Of course, I appeal to traditional DL applications, because those are known. We can see how something like OWL would help with them.

I’m not trying to speculate…I’m trying to help people acquire a concrete understanding of what you could sensibly use OWL for.

(Of course, there are relative arguments. If someone wanted to work with SHIF ontologies, I would not recommend that they use KRSS syntax instead of OWL RDF/XML syntax…the latter has advantages solely from it being a standard even though, in many ways it’s a technical PITA.)

I don’t think I said that “representing and reasoning with partial information” is the application, just that (for certain ranges) that’s what OWL does well, so any app (e.g., configuration) which requires that is a good candidate for OWL.

People regularly ask for more expressive power (e.g., OWL 1.1)...so I don’t see your point. Obviously, if you can’t represent something in OWL due to some other limitation (e.g., you need role value maps) then OWL doesn’t help you, but I don’t think I suggested otehrwise.

Also, I’m not trying to distinguish OWL from other similar logics, but OWL from e.g., “webized Datalog” or XML. Where does the particularly expressivity help? What is it good for, in general? Of course, I appeal to traditional DL applications, because those are known. We can see how something like OWL would help with them.

I’m not trying to speculate…I’m trying to help people acquire a concrete understanding of what you could sensibly use OWL for.

About network effect—would you reject the following:

(NE) “OWL was designed to be expressive, which is a plus. Its real advantage comes from reuse of concepts on the scale of the web and linking. [insert other usual network effect-y things]. ”

I think the above will fail—i.e. network effect will not lead to these happy things—but I think that distinguishing OWL by picking on the fact that it’s a “web logic” (and hence bound for network effects) is more accurate than trying to distinguish OWL by some of its logical features (expressivity, syntax [Oh god, not syntax!], etc.) which are not in any sense very new or very interesting, imo.

About network effect—would you reject the following:

(NE) “OWL was designed to be expressive, which is a plus. Its real advantage comes from reuse of concepts on the scale of the web and linking. [insert other usual network effect-y things]. “

I think the above will fail—i.e. network effect will not lead to these happy things—but I think that distinguishing OWL by picking on the fact that it’s a “web logic” (and hence bound for network effects) is more accurate than trying to distinguish OWL by some of its logical features (expressivity, syntax [Oh god, not syntax!], etc.) which are not in any sense very new or very interesting, imo.

About network effect—would you reject the following:

(NE) “OWL was designed to be expressive, which is a plus. Its real advantage comes from reuse of concepts on the scale of the web and linking. [insert other usual network effect-y things]. “

I think the above will fail—i.e. network effect will not lead to these happy things—but I think that distinguishing OWL by picking on the fact that it’s a “web logic” (and hence bound for network effects) is more accurate than trying to distinguish OWL by some of its logical features (expressivity, syntax [Oh god, not syntax!], etc.) which are not in any sense very new or very interesting, imo.

About network effect—would you reject the following:

(NE) “OWL was designed to be expressive, which is a plus. Its real advantage comes from reuse of concepts on the scale of the web and linking. [insert other usual network effect-y things]. “

I think the above will fail—i.e. network effect will not lead to these happy things—but I think that distinguishing OWL by picking on the fact that it’s a “web logic” (and hence bound for network effects) is more accurate than trying to distinguish OWL by some of its logical features (expressivity, syntax [Oh god, not syntax!], etc.) which are not in any sense very new or very interesting, imo.

I posted the following message to the Semantic Mediawiki list, about something I called “Triple+”: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=15160740

I’ve seen a RDF proposal called “Quads” (http://robustai.net/sailor/grammar/Quads.html), but that still seems too structured for common use.

I’m no semweb expert, but understand most of the underlying concepts of it, but still feel the cost/benefit ratio of implementing and maintaining a semweb application is too high currently. My feeling is things need to be simplified, and be made more sloppy (the “be liberal in what you accept” adage).

Whats your opinion on this?

Thanks.

I posted the following message to the Semantic Mediawiki list, about something I called “Triple+”: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?...

I’ve seen a RDF proposal called “Quads” (http://robustai.net/sailor/grammar/Quads.html), but that still seems too structured for common use.

I’m no semweb expert, but understand most of the underlying concepts of it, but still feel the cost/benefit ratio of implementing and maintaining a semweb application is too high currently. My feeling is things need to be simplified, and be made more sloppy (the “be liberal in what you accept” adage).

Whats your opinion on this?

Thanks.

I posted the following message to the Semantic Mediawiki list, about something I called “Triple+”: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?...

I’ve seen a RDF proposal called “Quads” (http://robustai.net/sailor/grammar/Quads.html), but that still seems too structured for common use.

I’m no semweb expert, but understand most of the underlying concepts of it, but still feel the cost/benefit ratio of implementing and maintaining a semweb application is too high currently. My feeling is things need to be simplified, and be made more sloppy (the “be liberal in what you accept” adage).

Whats your opinion on this?

Thanks.

I posted the following message to the Semantic Mediawiki list, about something I called “Triple+”: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?...

I’ve seen a RDF proposal called “Quads” (http://robustai.net/sailor/grammar/Quads.html), but that still seems too structured for common use.

I’m no semweb expert, but understand most of the underlying concepts of it, but still feel the cost/benefit ratio of implementing and maintaining a semweb application is too high currently. My feeling is things need to be simplified, and be made more sloppy (the “be liberal in what you accept” adage).

Whats your opinion on this?

Thanks.