Thoughts on the complex relation between linked data, semantic annotations, and ontologies
Proceedings of the sixth international workshop on Exploiting semantic annotations in information retrieval
RW'13 Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Reasoning Web: semantic technologies for intelligent data access
Geospatial semantics and linked spatiotemporal data --Past, present, and future
Semantic Web - On linked spatiotemporal data and geo-ontologies
Inferring and validating skills and competencies over time
Applied Ontology
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
The Semantic Web emphasizes encoding over modeling. It is built on the premise that ontology engineers can say something useful about the semantics of vocabularies by expressing themselves in an encoding language for automated reasoning. This assumption has never been systematically tested and the shortage of documented successful applications of Semantic Web ontologies suggests it is wrong. Rather than blaming OWL and its expressiveness (in whatever flavor) for this state of affairs, we should improve the modeling techniques with which OWL code is produced. I propose, therefore, to separate the concern of modeling from that of encoding, as it is customary for database or user interface design. Modeling semantics is a design task, encoding it is an implementation. Ontology research, for applications in the Semantic Web or elsewhere, should produce languages for both. Ontology modeling languages primarily support ontological distinctions and secondarily (where possible and necessary) translation to encoding languages.