David Allen
Usenet Archive
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2000
- Messages
- 20
- Reaction score
- 0
I've been recently reading up on OWL and some of the topics related to the Semantic Web. It seems though that while OWL became an official recommendation a while back, there isn't much use of it outside of the research world. (i.e. sample implementation reasoners, parsers, etc but no higher level apps built on the underlying facilities OWL might provide)
As I read the recommendation on OWL, a lot of its structure seemed like Prolog and normal propositional logic, with extra extensions for the notions of object-orientation and classes, wrapped up in XML. I haven't seen any references to this other material though, so I'm left to believe that either it doesn't apply (and hence pointers to resources on learning that material wouldn't be helpful, because there wouldn't be any carry-over) or the community just hasn't built itself yet.
One thought that crossed my mind was that it might be unrealistic for web publishers to publish ontologies related to their subject material when they don't even know what an ontology is, how to use it, or how to write one. Meanwhile, visions of "the semantic web" dance in our heads. (Oh yeah, and sugarplums as well)
Searching this group has yielded only a few messages on OWL - am I in the wrong place (there doesn't seem to be a group devoted to OWL) or I am just noticing the conspicuous chirping of crickets? Is there any moving and/or shaking going on in the world of OWL?
As I read the recommendation on OWL, a lot of its structure seemed like Prolog and normal propositional logic, with extra extensions for the notions of object-orientation and classes, wrapped up in XML. I haven't seen any references to this other material though, so I'm left to believe that either it doesn't apply (and hence pointers to resources on learning that material wouldn't be helpful, because there wouldn't be any carry-over) or the community just hasn't built itself yet.
One thought that crossed my mind was that it might be unrealistic for web publishers to publish ontologies related to their subject material when they don't even know what an ontology is, how to use it, or how to write one. Meanwhile, visions of "the semantic web" dance in our heads. (Oh yeah, and sugarplums as well)
Searching this group has yielded only a few messages on OWL - am I in the wrong place (there doesn't seem to be a group devoted to OWL) or I am just noticing the conspicuous chirping of crickets? Is there any moving and/or shaking going on in the world of OWL?