Re: [regrep-cc-review] What if? CCRIM => CCOWL

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

Happy New Year,

In terms of OWL and DAML+OIL, OWL "OWL is a revision of the DAML+OIL web
ontology language incorporating lessons learned from the design and
application of DAML+OIL." [1]

Regarding what technologies are currently in the same general category
of OWL, there are: Topic Maps, RDF, DAML+OIL, and OWL-S for Semantic Web
Services (in its very early stages). 

There is also RuleML, which is "about rule interoperation between
industry standards (such as JSR 94, SQL'99, OCL, BPMI, WSFL, XLang,
XQuery, RQL, OWL, DAML-S, and ISO Prolog) as well as established systems
(CLIPS, Jess, ILOG JRules, Blaze Advisor, Versata, MQWorkFlow, BizTalk,
Savvion, etc.)." [2]

Regarding OWL and Topic Maps: Lars Marius Garshol of Ontopia published a
paper [3] (not dated but I'm quite sure it was written in 2002) titled
"Living with topic maps and RDF" that you might find interesting.
Although not about OWL, since OWL extends RDF some of the findings may
be applicable to OWL as well. The paper's conclusion:

<Conclusion>
The key lessons are that: 

- Merging the two technologies does not appear desirable or possible.
- It is possible to convert data back and forth between the two
representations using simple, declarative, vocabulary-specific mappings.
- This makes it possible for RDF and topic maps to have shared
vocabularies.
- RDF constraints can be converted to topic map constraints given such a
mapping.
- Semantic annotations in OWL can be translated directly into a topic
map representation of the same information. That is, the descriptive
part of OWL can be used both with RDF and with topic maps.
- It is possible to create a single query language for both RDF and
topic maps.

In short, it does appear that it is possible to live with both RDF and
topic maps. 
</Conclusion>

Regarding OAGI's Semantic Integration Working Group (on Yahoo!): I've
just joined this group, which I've been meaning to do for weeks. I'll be
happy to help as liaison between the groups (I understand that Monica
Martin is on this OAGI listserv as well). Thanks for the suggestion,
Jamie.

Kind Regards,
Joe

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/
[2] http://www.dfki.uni-kl.de/ruleml/
[3] http://www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/materials/tmrdf.html

Farrukh Najmi wrote:
> 
> James Bryce Clark wrote:
> 
> >     1.  Has OWL become the consensus methodology?
> 
> That is my sense that OWL is the consensus for Ontology definition.
> 
> > Has DAML+OIL satisfactorily converged with it?
> 
> Yes. AFAIK, OWL supersedes DAML+OWL.
> 
> > Are topic maps out of the running?
> 
> Some say you need both Topic Maps and OWL, though I cannot understand
> why. In my mind OWL supersedes Topic Maps..
> 
> > RDF?
> 
> OWL is RDF. It is a dialect of RDF.
> 
> > I had the impression at XML2003 that there are still multiple
> > plausible parallel paths here.
> 
> There are always multiple paths to every destination even if some are
> filled with cob-webs and hurdles. OWL seems to me to be the path that
> will survive.
> 
> > Obviously one high-level design issue for ebXML is potential
> > catholicity among tools and specifications.  Putting it differently,
> > is "choosing" OWL a significant compatibility or vendor-alignment issue?
> 
> I propose an incremental strategy for adding OWL support as an optional
> feature initially. This will allow vendors and users to keep pace with
> the evolving standard.
> 
> >     If you go down this path, I've also had chats with other semantic
> > methods experts that might be worth pinging.
> 
> Please send me your thoughts on who we should ping. I see the need for
> coordination with the proposed RDF Data Access WG most urgently as I see
> significant overlap between their proposed charter and that of the
> proposed Semantic Content Management SC of ebXML Registry.
> 
> >     2.  Have you followed the possible cognate work in [ontolog-forum]
> > (where I think at least Farrukh is a subscriber) or OAGI's Semantic
> > Integration Working Group?
> 
> I have not been following either too closely but plan to get more
> involved with ontolog forum starting now.
> 
> >     Warm regards and happy new year   Jamie
> 
> Happy new year to you and all my dear colleagues.
> 
> --
> Regards,
> Farrukh
begin:vcard 
n:Chiusano;Joseph
tel;work:(703) 902-6923
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:www.bah.com
org:Booz | Allen | Hamilton;IT Digital Strategies Team
adr:;;8283 Greensboro Drive;McLean;VA;22012;
version:2.1
email;internet:chiusano_joseph@bah.com
title:Senior Consultant
fn:Joseph M. Chiusano
end:vcard