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

[Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>]

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