Many thanks, Jim.
I saw posts by you and others - as well as links to more detailed -
and very recent - discussions.
These are all very helpful.
I was particularly interested in the proposal you, Ora Lassilla, and
others have worked on to "absorb" much of the OWL Lite constructs
into RDF++ (I believe that is the name being used - two proposals -
the summary of which you give here - http://www.nabble.com/
perspectives-on-OWL-v.next-and-RDF-tf2624829.html) - minus many of
the class axioms and Datatype Properties, but including
owl:disjointWith.
I recall reading some on this in the past, but given these issues
related to OWL 1.1, those proposals take on a whole new semantic
value now - pun[ning] intended. ;-)
I also can definitely see the sense in the argument when trying to
determine where to go next, there is need to achieve a balance
between simplicity to catalyze wider adoption and the need to provide
new functionality to a subset of users. I think its actually a four
way balance:
simplicity - robustness - performance/scalability - expressivity
These characteristics are not necessarily exclusive of - or the
inverse of - one another, though usually performance scales with the
inverse of expressivity, at least when comparing across very large
differences in expressivity.
The position you choose to target in this space really depends on
what you are trying to achieve, obviously.
Cheers,
Bill
On Nov 16, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Jim Hendler wrote:
actually, we're trying to move the discussion to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
there's a thread there that expresses some of my concerns about
moving away from the OWL syntax - given that the primary tools out
there right now still assume the OWL is integrated with the RDF
graph...
At 2:52 PM -0500 11/16/06, William Bug wrote:
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]
--
Prof James Hendler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dept of Computer Science http://www.cs.umd.edu/
~hendler
AV Williams Bldg 301-405-2696 (work)
Univ of Maryland 301-405-6707 (Fax)
College Park, MD 20853 USA
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]
