Talk:Web Ontology Language
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wasn't it also Borland's Object Window Library an alternative to VCL? --Error 00:47, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] SHION
Does SHION(D) and SHIF(F) really need to be shown as equations? They distract the eye as you read it.. ? --RickiRich 21:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with this - I do not see any need to show those names in math mode Johann Petrak 20:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I tend to think of the \mathcal is part of the name. The Description logic page uses it as well, and best to be consistent between them. Bparsia 18:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Examples please
 |
Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (November 2007) |
This topic would be improved if it showed a simple "toy" example of OWL for illustrative purposes. --Erik 15:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Erixoltan
- Agreed. -- Beland 04:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] MME edits
It's great that the OWL entry is getting attention, but I don't really agree with the changes which have been made. Maybe we need to work to craft a compromise entry.
Saying that OWL is about "sharing data using ontologies" instead of just "sharing ontologies" strikes me as misleading. The RDF subset of OWL is the language for sharing just the data elements. The term "OWL" is generally used to refer particularly to the semantic markup used to annotate such RDF data.
The terms "semantic" and "syntactic" don't mean much to me unless they are defined, and defining them is *hard*. I think the original wording about the "content of" information is preferable, although I completely agree it's not ideal.
And I strongly disagree with the changes made to the final modified paragraph. While some people do view OWL as the foundation of the semantic web, I think the majority of OWL users these days don't care a whit for the "Semantic Web" vision. To say the language is being positioned as this or that suggests that this is the predominant view or outlook, and it's not.
The description of OWL as "significantly augment[ing] the semantic content provided by XML" is very strange, since XML doesn't offer any significant semantic import to its data. I suppose you could ascribe some semantics to the various XML Schema languages, but such things are different enough from OWL that I think the comparison is just confusing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rvcx (talk • contribs) 20:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Copy-pasted section
I noticed that section "Sublanguages" is copied from W3C OWL Overview, section 1.3. I'm not sure but doesn't this violate some copyright? --Picci 18:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
