[ RE:Re: good references re. ontologies for S*m*ntic W*b ]
Thanks to everyone who replied to my message. Jerry - I wasn't aware of OWL-time, so thanks. To Philippe - I haven't had a chance to look at your document yet, but I will. To Avril - your thesis looks most interesting - I like the way you draw in both traditional philosophy and (it seems) semiotics. John your document looks fantastically thorough. Can you tell me more about the OntoSpace project? Also, you wrote:
>>
Sounds very useful. I'll look forward to it!
>>
I'll forward a draft to the list when I've got one together (it will take some time though).
>>
I'd be particularly
interested in seeing where you draw the boundaries: i.e., what
will make your survey include an ontology and what not. [...]
If first order
axiomatisation is sufficient to exclude consideration for
the semantic web, then I reckon that is a bit premature
(with the convergence of first order reasoners and description
logic reasoners in terms of performance that we are currently
seeing for restricted areas). But if not, then
what other criteria would you select to distinguish
a "semantic web" ontology.
>>
You ask a good question. Actually it seems to me there are two questions you're raising here:
i) what is an ontology? (as opposed to, say, a
relational database)
ii) what qualifies a given ontology as being 'on the semantic web'?