Because of this, there's just not much utility in taking the time to generate semantic markup- it'll be sloppy and incomplete even when done by a PhD student specializing in this subject.
Because of this, there's just not much utility in taking the time to generate semantic markup- it'll be sloppy and incomplete even when done by a PhD student specializing in this subject.
But OWL is not based on OOP, it's based on Description Logic, which is a much more powerful abstraction than OOP and it let's you easily represent things which are very hard with something like Java. OWL includes the concept of complex class, in which you define the logical constraints of the class and then it is inferred automatically by a reasoner. This means that you can build really complex multidimensional hierarchies pretty easily.
For example, you can solve the circle/ellipse this way: the class circle is a complex class which is the intersection of the class ellipse and the class of two dimensional geometric shapes in which both major and minor axis have the same length. Any object that satisfies those constraints is a circle!
About the greek problem: you have to declare that the human class and the complex class which results from the intersection of the class two-legged animal and featherless animal are equivalent. It means that every human is two-legged featherless animal and viceversa.
You can even declare equivalences between ontologies, which lets you build conceptual bridges.
OWL has problems related with the maturity and performance of its implementations, and it remains to be seen if it's possible to treat the web as a gigantic Prolog program, but its conceptual model is powerful and sound.
If you just have a vocabulary where everyone can freely define concepts and their relationships in a fuzzy way this original goal will never be tractable- There needs to be some sort of unambiguous shared concept space between disparate sites (which in my estimation appears to not be achievable in any practical sense, due to the difficulty in finding "one true way" to build ontologies.)
Also, I think there were ways to "map" different ontologies, thought I never really explored that.
The test for any proposed Internet standard or system should be "what happens when 4chan hears about it?" I don't see semantic web ideas taking off outside of closed forums and walled gardens like academic research or the military. On the public Internet you'll rapidly end up with Donald Trump mapping to "small penis," etc.
I think they do, but finding the right mathematical model is very difficult. If it were easy, everyone would be a mathematics PhD.
Learning to program is becoming efficient at recognizing the right spherical cow in any given situation, because such shortcuts are essential to getting shit done.
(To pick one question where something doesn't map onto a hierarchy simply)
Programming is actually great for discovering this. Especially OOP, with its introductory examples of animal taxonomy and shapes.