As I expected, the experts are listening. :-)
Many thanks, Holger. That's extremely important to know.
I will dig into the thread for more detail. One main concern would
be whether that was just a token gesture to stay compatible for now,
as opposed to a commitment to remain compatible, until or unless an
effective alternative is provided to representing very large
knowledgebases in RDF.
I think more than anything I was a bit overwhelmed by the collective
picture given by those half-dozen or so presentations from last
week's meeting. The meeting seemed "fresh" enough, so that it could
be expected to be reflective of the status quo. I assume there was
much heated discussion during the meeting, that would have filled out
such detail - or such has been carried out on the owl-dev list.
I suppose it's also a good idea to dig into the OWL Extensions list
hosted by Jim Hendler's lab:
http://lists.mindswap.org/mailman/listinfo/owl
Cheers,
Bill
On Nov 16, 2006, at 2:33 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
However, I'd point out, in the last document, where they describe
a mapping of OWL 1.1 to RDF, they make the following caveat:
Not every OWL 1.1 ontology can be serialized in RDF. In
particular, ontologies using the following features of OWL 1.1
cannot be serialized:
1. punning and
2. annotations on axioms.
Please see a recent thread on the public-owl-dev mailing list about
this: http://www.nabble.com/Limitations-of-OWL-1.1-to-RDF-mapping-
tf2639224.html
Bijan states:
"The RDF mapping has lagged behind the others, but the plan is to
extend the mapping to cover these cases."
Holger
TopQuadrant, Inc.
http://www.topbraidcomposer.com
http://composing-the-semantic-web.blogspot.com/
Bill Bug
Senior Research Analyst/Ontological Engineer
Laboratory for Bioimaging & Anatomical Informatics
www.neuroterrain.org
Department of Neurobiology & Anatomy
Drexel University College of Medicine
2900 Queen Lane
Philadelphia, PA 19129
215 991 8430 (ph)
610 457 0443 (mobile)
215 843 9367 (fax)
Please Note: I now have a new email - [EMAIL PROTECTED]