Curiouser and Curiouser! on ontology http://matt.blogs.it/ RSS feed for topic ontology Copyright 2006 Matt Mower Squib/0.1 self@mattmower.com self@mattmower.com en-gb Web Ontology Thu, 08 Aug 2002 22:55:13 +0100 <P><A href="http://www.iaslash.org/node.php?id=4576">OWL Web Ontology Language Working Drafts Published</A>. From W3C news releases: <I>The Web Ontology Working Group has released three first Working Drafts. The <A href="http://w3.org/TR/2002/WD-owl-features-20020729/">Feature Synopsis</A>, <A href="http://w3.org//TR/2002/WD-owl-absyn-20020729/">Abstract Syntax</A> and <A href="http://w3.org//TR/2002/WD-owl-ref-20020729/">Language Reference</A> describe the OWL Web Ontology Language 1.0 and its subset OWL Lite. Automated tools can use common sets of terms called ontologies to power services such as more accurate Web search, intelligent software agents, and knowledge management. OWL is used to publish and share ontologies on the Web. Read about the W3C <A href="http://w3.org//2001/sw/">Semantic Web Activity</A>.</I> [<A href="http://www.iaslash.org/">ia/ - news for information architects</A>]</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <P>ยป Interesting stuff.&nbsp; I shall have to see how this relates to Topic Mapping and XTM.&nbsp; My guess is that OWL is a layer above XTM and is used for providing the <EM>contours</EM> of the topic map.</P> <P>&nbsp;</P></BLOCKQUOTE> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00000269.html You'd think with a name like OWL I'd be able to come up with a pun... Tue, 08 Apr 2003 21:47:00 +0100 <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <P>Roger Costello and David Jacobs have published a <A href="http://www.xfront.com/owl-quick-intro/sld001.htm">quick introduction</A> to the <A href="http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/">OWL Web Ontology Language</A> (OWL) which is a semantic layer that sits above the <A href="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/">Resource Description Framework</A> (RDF).</P> <P>[Posted on <A href="http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/">xml-dev</A>]</P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I doubt this introduction will make converts of anyone, OWL just isn't that easy to grok, but the applications it presents are credible ones.&nbsp; I think the problem for skeptics is that they (a) have seen it all before, and, (b) are suspicious of things that they can't directly grapple with, and, OWL & RDF are not for the fainthearted.</P> <P>The fact that RDF is not widely considered to be a success is not surprising to me.&nbsp; It looks complicated and it's not immediately obvious what you do with it - it's just metadata after all.&nbsp; <FONT color=maroon>I believe that OWL or, more precisely, useful OWL ontologies, are what will make RDF successful.</FONT>&nbsp; It's OWL that tells applications what they can (and cannot) do with RDF metadata.&nbsp;That's it's power.</P> <P>Two key things need to happen now:</P> <UL> <LI>The creation of applications that help developers to create robust and useful ontologies. <LI>The creation of libraries for embedding RDF+OWL into applications (as ubiqitous as XML parser libraries are today).</LI></UL> <P>If these two pieces of the puzzle can be assembled then I think we will see a raft of components built that utilize ontologies to perform their functions.&nbsp; These components&nbsp;will be made into JavaBeans, .NET assemblies, published as web services, whatever.&nbsp; Users will consume those services and never need to know that OWL or RDF are involved.</P> <P>However until those tools arrive I believe the only course left to you&nbsp;(unless you're trying to build them yourself) is to be pragmatic and keep a weather eye open.&nbsp; As <A href="http://www.scripting.com/">Dave Winer</A> <A href="http://joi.ito.com/archives/2003/04/06/rss_and_rdf_fun.html">commented</A> recently about RDF: "I am not against it, as long as it doesn't interfere with what I want to do."</P> http://matt.blogs.it/entries/00001371.html