No subject

think that the current GrOWL could be easily plugged in into any OWL
processing application that uses Wonderweb OWLAPI. As soon as Jena
supports persistant storage and RDQL queries we may think of writing
Jena based version of GrOWL with   support for graphic queries
generating RDQL output, but particularities of this query/persistent
storage direction of work must be discussed. How about you guys, what
kind of ontology language /API you are using/planning to use?

Bertram, on Santa-Barbara workshop you made me to think about benefits
of decidable system that can check subsumption and consistency. In a way
you had converted us to DL "faith". I started to think that   OWL/DL or
DL  based systems have very interesting perspectives in developing
knowledge bases. I wonder if  Bill and Mark would share this
appreciation of advantages associated with DL?

Serguei,


-----Original Message-----
From: Bertram Ludaescher [mailto:ludaesch at sdsc.edu] 
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 7:44 AM
To: ferdinando.villa at uvm.edu; Serguei Krivov
Cc: Mark Gahegan; Bill Pike; Efrat Jaeger; Kai Lin;
seek-dev at ecoinformatics.org
Subject: Codex and GrOWL (and other related) visualization efforts


Ferdinando, Serguei:

Having just seen a very nice demo of GrOWL and your plans to do a
collaborative version of it, I wanted to point you to the Codex work
done by Bill Pike and Mark Gahegan at Penn State. Here is a link
(there must be others to the code):

http://ftp.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-83/sia_1.p
df

Maybe you and the Penn State folks want to see how you could join
forces (maybe even come of with a joint GrOWL+Codex tool?)

Codex and other tools that Kai Lin has been working with are currently
used for GEON ontology visualization and editing.

It would be great if Kai, Bill and Mark, and you guys could link up to 
make your tools interoperable (or even work towards a joint toolkit!?)

Bertram