RE: D7 - Which languages are better than OWL?
All,
There is a rather common misconception that OWL was meant to be
a standard ontology development language. Rather, it was originally
meant to be for exchanging ontologies. More expressive languages could
be used for development, for internal inferencing, or for interchange
with others using the same language, and then translated (yes, with some
loss of semantics) to OWL for exchange with others.
Here's a quote from Jim Hendler from a panel discussion in 2005:
Jim Hendler: "So, let me go back to OWL for a second, see I have a very
different view of OWL than some people, which may sound funny to some
people. I don't view OWL as an ontology language per se or as a very
good KR language. OWL is a language for exchanging ontologies much more
than a specific language; so if I'm dong my own application, I view OWL
as the way I export and import knowledge from other people, I don't view
it as the only thing I'm allowed to use on the whole world for
knowledge.
The full panel transcript is at:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2005_08_11/Sessio
nTranscript
James R. Schoening
U.S. Army CECOM LCMC CIO/G6 Office
Voice: DSN 992-5812 or (732) 532-5812
Fax: DSN 992-7551 or (732) 532-7551
Email: James.Schoening@us.army.mil