[seek-kr-sms] Re: [seek-dev] RE: Codex and GrOWL (and other related) visualization efforts

[Mark Schildhauer]

Hi Mark,

Good to hear from you!   Say, completely aside from some of  the 
technical issues discussed in this note, we have some within SEEK in 
finding a relatively simple "concept map" editing tool that is easily 
used by domain scientists.  The level of formalization here is not as 
important as ease-of-use, and compellingness of visualization.  Does 
CODEX fit that bill?  I couldn't find a copy for testing and download 
thru the Web site.  Thanks!

Mark Gahegan wrote:

> Hi Serguei,
>
>> Bertram, Bill, and Mark,
>> From the paper I did not get clear idea if you are using OWL in Codex.
>
>
> Yes, it can use OWL, though we currently use the Jena API, not OWLAPI.
>
>>  I
>> 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?
>
>
> I, for one, would welcome description logics.  We have an interesting 
> gap, I think, between the semi-formal concept map and the more formal 
> conceptual graph that would be a far happier place from which to 
> conduct inference.  The gap seems to stem from the fact that users do 
> not typically think formally when describing their understanding, 
> hence our concept maps in Codex are not rigorous enough to be reasoned 
> with as formal ontologies.  The interesting question for me is how you 
> get from a concept map to a conceptual graph, or some other formal, 
> self-consistent representation.
>
> mark
>
>
>> 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
>
>
> ---
> Mark Gahegan
> GeoVISTA Center
> Penn State Geography
> _______________________________________________
> seek-dev mailing list
> seek-dev at ecoinformatics.org
> http://www.ecoinformatics.org/mailman/listinfo/seek-dev



-- 
Mark P. Schildhauer, Ph.D. --  Director of Computing
NCEAS --  National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis
735 State St., Suite 300       Santa Barbara, CA   93101-3351	
Email: schild at nceas.ucsb.edu   WEB: http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu
Phone: 805-892-2509            FAX: 805-892-2510