Misty, (01)
I reworked the section on technology readiness ratings. See paper I
sent in the other message. (02)
Jim Schoening (03)
-----Original Message-----
From: cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cuo-wg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Marian Nodine
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 3:13 PM
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 (04)
I can't participate in the teleconference, but do have a comment. This is not
really a rating per se, but rather a software readiness level. Interpreted this
way, the numbers look more reasonable (with the possible exception of the OWL
one). Note the comment just below the rating table: (05)
XML, RDF, and OWL may be mature, but can't achieve enterprise data
interoperability. Upper and mapped upper ontologies potentially can solve this
problem, but are not mature enough for implementation. (06)
This is, IMHO, a bit more like it. (07)
-- Misty (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|