[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Mike Champion wrote:
>
> OK, I'll take the flames on this :~) but I'm pretty sure this is the
"conventional wisdom"
> and not some idiosyncratic position of mine. I consider myself a friendly
skeptic, I'd be
> happy to be convinced that something like RDDL+RDF or some RDF version of
a well-accepted
> controlled vocabulary (e.g. SNOMED in the medical field) adds real value
over what we can
> do without it. So, flame me if you want, but I'd much rather that those
who are saddened by
> the bad reputation of the SemWeb would convince me (and most everyone else
in the industry)
> that the conventional wisdom is wrong.
>
An "RDF version of a well-accepted controlled vocabulary (e.g. SNOMED in the
medical field)" is pretty much exactly what the WebOnt language is going to
provide. SNOMED is based on "description logic", and DAML+OIL is essentially
a DL language.
There is more than just the controlled vocabulary bit:
1) the ability for a classifier to assign new classes and individuals to
positions within the class hierarchy.
2) the ability to share and reason across multiple ontologies on the web
and perhaps a few more bits, the point being however that this isn't just a
research project, rather there are large industries (e.g. healthcare which
totals17% of the GNP in the USA) for which such technologies are
a) in use today
b) highly relevent
so the ability to integrate disparate ontologies and to share data and
ontologies on the web is rather useful. Now what I am talking about is not
the pie in the sky semantic web y'all are fond of making fun of. Behind all
the hype there is some not insignificant reality. Hmmm, sounds much like XML
itself.
Jonathan
|
