It has to be said, as well, that commercial semantic reasoning doesn't tend to use the "lightweight" approach of RDF and OWL for serious applications:
http://www.rightscom.com/Portals/0/Formal_Ontology_for_Media_Rights_Transactions.pdf -m From: Michael Hopwood [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 21 June 2012 11:01 To: Juan Sequeda; Barry Norton Cc: Denny Vrandecic; [email protected] Subject: RE: Reuse Diverse vocabulary standards I think are neither especially "good" or "bad" in this sense, they are basically just a natural consequence of the fact that: To describe a set of "stuff" in a given "context" you need a(nother) specific vocabulary - this is just the way that structured, formal language works. See: http://www.erpanet.org/events/2004/cork/presentations/040617PaskinPIConcepts.pdf - especially final 10 slides on the contextual ontology model. There is actually an existing service (not called FooBar, sadly) that does precisely this kind of thing: http://www.doi.org/VMF/documents/VocabularyMappingFrameworkIntroductionV1.0%28091212%29.pdf It would be great to hear some feedback on it from the LOD communit(y/ies). Cheers, Michael
