Perhaps we need to put some other technologies in the list so we know
where to place thinks, my guess would be;
* Cobol - 10
* Java - 8
* SQL - 9
* HTML - 7
* XML - 6
* J2EE - 6
* UML - 5
* Web Services - 4
* MDA - 4 (01)
I would not rate ANY of the ontology technologies as mature as ANY of
the above, from the perspective of a mature technology being one that is
stable, and is proven to deliver specific value in a well understood way
and has an established support infrastructure. So I would start the
OWL/RDF stack at "3" and work from there. All these numbers are
arbitrary. (02)
-Cory Casanave (03)
-----Original Message-----
From: cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Uschold, Michael F
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 5:02 PM
To: common upper ontology working group
Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] How would you rate thesesemantictechnologies?Conf
erenceCall Wed Dec 20, 11:30-12:30 (04)
I agree with Pat. Rating OWL a 9 seems inappropriate.
It is a 9 from a technical maturity point of view, having evolved from
decades of AI/KR research. But the maturity of a language is not very
interesting. How mature are the tools? Who has used them for what? There
are few if any OWL applications that are in mainstream production, so
I'd lower the rating a few ticks. (05)
M. (06)
==========================
Michael Uschold
M&CT, Phantom Works
425 373-2845
michael.f.uschold@xxxxxxxxxx
========================== (07)
----------------------------------------------------
COOL TIP: to skip the phone menu tree and get a human on the phone, go
to: http://gethuman.com/tips.html (08)
-----Original Message-----
From: Cassidy, Patrick J. [mailto:pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 1:03 PM
To: common upper ontology working group
Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] How would you rate these semantictechnologies?Conf
erenceCall Wed Dec 20, 11:30-12:30 (09)
Jim,
I regret that I will not be able to participate in the conference due
to a conflict.
My main concern is that the title of that paper may be misleading -- I
think of ontologies, upper ontologies, KIF-based ontologies as being
"current technology". Whether they have been successfully implemented
is hard to find out: Cyc and others claim to have used ontologies for
integrating databases, but the results are not public for evaluation. (010)
I would rename the paper: (011)
Data Interoperability across the Enterprise -
Why Current Off-The-Shelf Software Cannot Achieve it (012)
My other quibbles with section titles would be:
In part 1: (013)
"Developing Larger Domains Does Not Scale"
--> Developing Large Non-modular Domains Does Not Scale (014)
"C. Cross-Domain Mapping Does Not Scale"
--> "C. Cross-Domain Many-to-Many Mapping Does Not Scale" (015)
On a substantive level, I would argue with the assertion about OWL at
level 9:
'9. Actual system 'flight proven' though successful mission
operations." (016)
There may be applications that actually use OWL ontologies to do more
than simple search in the ontology itself, but I don't know of any.
One should only rate OWL as a 9 if you can point to applications that
actually used the OWL as an ontology rather than as a fancy database,
and did something with it more than you can do as easily (or easier?)
with existing database applications. (017)
I won't have time for further inspection before next week. I'll look
for the results of your conference. (018)
Pat (019)
-----Original Message-----
From: cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Schoening, James R
C-E LCMC CIO/G6
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 9:21 AM
To: 'common upper ontology working group'
Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] How would you rate these semantic
technologies?Conf erenceCall Wed Dec 20, 11:30-12:30 (020)
Cory,
Appendix 2 and the overall paper should provide the basis and
context.
Jim (021)
-----Original Message-----
From: cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cory Casanave
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 8:48 AM
To: common upper ontology working group
Subject: Re: [cuo-wg] How would you rate these semantic technologies?
ConferenceCall Wed Dec 20, 11:30-12:30 (022)
Jim,
Rate on what basis? (023)
-----Original Message-----
From: cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Schoening, James R
C-E LCMC CIO/G6
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 7:49 AM
To: 'common upper ontology working group'
Subject: [cuo-wg] How would you rate these semantic technologies?
ConferenceCall Wed Dec 20, 11:30-12:30 (024)
CDSI, (025)
The attached paper rates the following semantic technologies: (026)
Technology: Score: (See Appendix 2 for scale)
XML/Metadata 9
RDF 9
OWL 9
Stand-alone ontologies 6
Upper Ontologies 4
Mapped Upper Ontologies 1 (027)
What's your opinion? Join us for tomorrow's teleconference and
let's discuss. Details below (028)
Jim Schoening (029)
-----Original Message-----
From: Schoening, James R C-E LCMC CIO/G6
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 8:45 AM
To: common upper ontology working group
Subject: CDSI Draft Paper and Conference Call Wed Dec 20, 11:30-12:30 (030)
Cross Domain Semantic Interoperability WG, (031)
The 2nd conference call of this group is scheduled for next
Wednesday, Dec 20th, 11:30 AM -12:30 PM EST. Join by dialing
(888)622-5357 and entering the code 342803. (032)
Attached is a draft paper, which will be discussed. The paper
attempts to explain, to the layman, that current technology cannot
achieve 'Data Interoperability across the Enterprise.' It concludes
that emerging technology has promise and should be pursued. It makes
a
first cut at rating various technologies on a 9-level maturity scale,
which needs further discussion. (033)
Please join the telecon and invite other stakeholders. The
CDSI-WG web site is at http://www.visualknowledge.com/wiki/CDSI. (034)
James R. Schoening
U.S. Army C-E LCMC CIO/G6 Office
Voice: DSN 992-5812 or (732) 532-5812
Fax: DSN 992-7551 or (732) 532-7551
Email: James.Schoening@xxxxxxxxxxx (035)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/cuo-wg/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/cuo-wg/
To Post: mailto:cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/ Shared Files:
http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/cuo-wg/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/CommonUpperOntologyWG (036)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/cuo-wg/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/cuo-wg/
To Post: mailto:cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/ Shared Files:
http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/cuo-wg/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/CommonUpperOntologyWG (037)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/cuo-wg/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/cuo-wg/
To Post: mailto:cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/ Shared Files:
http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/cuo-wg/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/CommonUpperOntologyWG (038)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/cuo-wg/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/cuo-wg/
To Post: mailto:cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/cuo-wg/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/CommonUpperOntologyWG (039)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/cuo-wg/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/cuo-wg/
To Post: mailto:cuo-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Portal: http://colab.cim3.net/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/cuo-wg/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/CommonUpperOntologyWG (040)
|