HippieHacker: Simple cwm program to rip through the rdf emitted by the gcc and pull it into something readable and usable. It connects the named object and name together.
HippieHacker: Currently I am working on extracting all the functions in the pnet into RDF.
HippieHacker: I have a cwm program that will convert the introspector gcc dumps into rdf ontologies
HippieHacker: that allows you to automatically create ontologies based on your c/c++ code
HippieHacker: I have a cwm program that will convert the introspector gcc dumps into rdf ontologies
HippieHacker: that allows you to automatically create ontologies based on your c/c++ code
jeen: small, fast RDF parser in Java, part of Sesame, first seperate release.
bijan: Yay! I'm so glad they factored it out and packaged it up.
bijan: Benchmarks against Jena, anyone?
libby: oh cool, I'll have to try it
bijan: Yay! I'm so glad they factored it out and packaged it up.
bijan: Benchmarks against Jena, anyone?
libby: oh cool, I'll have to try it
bijan: What to do, what to do.
bijan: I actually thing this is really interesting.
bijan: The embedded fragments are essentially opaque to the host document. Yet, presumably, they can be "checked" by a "datatype" oracle
bijan: Which will be, natch, an owl reasoner.
bijan: According to the design (see various Horrocks papers for proofs) if the datatype oracle is sound, complete, and decidable, so too will the whole DL reasoner
bijan: I've started playing around with this, espeically in trying to stretch the expressiveness of DL. In partiuclar, to overload varioius constructs as, say, in the host document FOL and in the literal, say, propositional modal logic.
bijan: This actually interesting mirrors putting stuff in different files. Or "behind" uris.
bijan: I suspec this should affect the social meaning issue (what doesn't?)
bijan: Plus, it's sorta interesting to consider them as a possibly useful foundation for contexts (or non-asserted triples)
bijan: They aren't quite, because they aren't parsed from the POV of the host graph (or rather, not parsed as triples)
bijan: I actually thing this is really interesting.
bijan: The embedded fragments are essentially opaque to the host document. Yet, presumably, they can be "checked" by a "datatype" oracle
bijan: Which will be, natch, an owl reasoner.
bijan: According to the design (see various Horrocks papers for proofs) if the datatype oracle is sound, complete, and decidable, so too will the whole DL reasoner
bijan: I've started playing around with this, espeically in trying to stretch the expressiveness of DL. In partiuclar, to overload varioius constructs as, say, in the host document FOL and in the literal, say, propositional modal logic.
bijan: This actually interesting mirrors putting stuff in different files. Or "behind" uris.
bijan: I suspec this should affect the social meaning issue (what doesn't?)
bijan: Plus, it's sorta interesting to consider them as a possibly useful foundation for contexts (or non-asserted triples)
bijan: They aren't quite, because they aren't parsed from the POV of the host graph (or rather, not parsed as triples)
bijan: Note my discriptive title.
bijan: "[OWL] satisfies one of the necessary conditions of the possibility of there being a Semantic Web at all."
bijan: Hmm. Is this true? I'm not sure I believe this.
bijan: There's several ways to read this. One that an ontology langauge (of this general sort, perhaps) is required. Another is that this much "solid development" is needed before the semweb can take off.
bijan: I.e., a widely deployed, second generation standard with strong general support and good intellectual background.
bijan: THe first is more a de re reading, the latter more de dicto. IOW, does the SemWeb need this thing or some thing fitting a (fairly abstract) description
bijan: Like the stages of grief. If anger is the second stage, my anger is necessary for my grieving, but some anger (not typically mine) is needed for anyone's grieving.
bijan: Well, if you buy the stages. It's an analogy, folks.
bijan: "[OWL] satisfies one of the necessary conditions of the possibility of there being a Semantic Web at all."
bijan: Hmm. Is this true? I'm not sure I believe this.
bijan: There's several ways to read this. One that an ontology langauge (of this general sort, perhaps) is required. Another is that this much "solid development" is needed before the semweb can take off.
bijan: I.e., a widely deployed, second generation standard with strong general support and good intellectual background.
bijan: THe first is more a de re reading, the latter more de dicto. IOW, does the SemWeb need this thing or some thing fitting a (fairly abstract) description
bijan: Like the stages of grief. If anger is the second stage, my anger is necessary for my grieving, but some anger (not typically mine) is needed for anyone's grieving.
bijan: Well, if you buy the stages. It's an analogy, folks.
HippieHacker: This is the edited result Treecc-Modules that is grouped into application specific and std