On 12 May 2009, at 10:49, John Goodwin wrote:
Hi,
I was just curious how many OWL sceptics we have in the LOD
community? Rightly or wrongly I get the impression there are a few?
OWL hasn't historically been very practical over large datasets, but I
have high hopes for some of the new dialects in OWL2.
I've been integrating various LOD resource for a small demo at work
and have come to the realisation than a bit of relatively simple OWL
goes a long way in making the integration process more complete. Not
that is was a great surprise really, but you soon realise that
owl:sameAs only gets you so far. IMHO we really need to get OWL into
the LOD mix for linking vocabularies/ontologies as well as data at
the instance level. RDFS is not enough.
There are some issues around here, my understanding is that owl:sameAs
is used a bit liberally in the LOD world as it is. In principle it
seems like a good idea though.
[snip]
Other simple examples of needing OWL with LOD are genealogy. I've
started to convert my family tree into RDF, e.g.:
http://www.johngoodwin.me.uk/family/I0265
http://www.johngoodwin.me.uk/family/I0243
A bit of OWL e.g.:
Parent = foaf:Person and isParentOf some foaf:Person
isParentOf o isBrotherOf -> isUncleOf
Uncle = foaf:Person and isUncleOf some foaf:Person
Would save me writing long SPARQL queries for find instances of
Parent, Uncle etc.
Sure, seems like a good idea, that can be better done in the local
processor I would have thought though, rather than at the LOD level?
- Steve
--
Steve Harris
Garlik Limited, 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK
+44(0)20 8973 2465 http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10
9AD
