Re: SUO: Re: W3C ontology requirements
Seth,
Perhaps you could start by giving us an idea what it would mean to "webize"
an ontology and how doing so would promote the explicit goals of the SUO
study group. I think that if you have suggestions on how to "webize" the
SUMO ontology, you should put them forth here.
The Teknowledge KB Browser responds to dynamic (parameterized) queries on a
structured database and is intended only for interactive use. It is not
part of the SUMO proposal itself--it's a service to the community of
contributors and evaluators.
For the record, the URI structure used by the KB browser was patterned
after Cyc's Web interface. The "caseSensitive" parameter may be omitted, it
is only consulted when a search is performed.
Adding new schemes is heavy-handed (unless, perhaps, you're the world
largest manufacturer of cell phones). Doing so would inhibit existing tools
such as Web browsers from interoperating with the ontology repository
without being customized or extended. I don't believe it's appropriate to
create a narrow, special-purpose alternative to perfectly workable existing
standards for Web-based content access.
It is eminently feasible to modify the browser to use what appear to be
static (non-query) URIs. So, for example, your "Entity" query could appear
like this: <http://.../Merge/Entity.const>. If that's all you're objecting
to, then say so and suggest that it be changed.
By the way, I don't know where the example URL you gave came from, but it
is not correct for the current browser software. You need something like
this:
<http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/SKB.jsp?req=SC&name=Entity&skb=Merge>.
(The missing parameter is "skb=Merge"--the server loads multiple KBs
concurrently, and the request must state which one to query.)
Likewise, an XML DTD for the SUMO ontology would also be straightforward to
create. Perhaps you'd like to take a stab at it?
Webize... A neologism we don't need.
Randall Schulz
Mountain View, CA USA
P.S. If you're going to demand that people conform to standards, you should
set a better example. The case in point is the enclosure of URLs embedded
in email within <angle brackets> to maintain their integrity in the face of
line wrapping.
At 11:00 2002-02-05, you wrote:
>From: "murray j bent" <murrayb@imailbox.com>
>
> > about web ontology requirements is at http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/owl/
>
>I think there is another lesson that SUO could learn from OWL.
>
>Quoting from the above document:
>
> "Clean interface to other standards including (but not only)
> XML-standards. This is a standards-based industry, and
> the clear relationship of OWL to RDF/RDFS/DAML etc.
> is important. "
>
>I mean SUMO is making absolutely no effort to Webize the ontology
>constants. And, NO, a URL like
><http://ontology.teknowledge.com:8080/rsigma/SKB.jsp?req=SC&name=Entity&caseSensitive=on>
>is NOT a good URI for "Entity" ... and I'm not even talking about the fact
>that the ontology browser doesn't seem to be working at the moment.
>
>For some suggestions about how to give our constants better URI please see:
><http://www-nrc.nokia.com/sw/draft-pstickler-uri-taxonomy-00.html>
><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2002Jan/0127.html>
>
>Seth Russell