Am 12.01.2009 um 19:19 schrieb Holger Knublauch: > > Hi Thomas, > > thomas wrote: >> Am 06.01.2009 um 01:59 schrieb Holger Knublauch: >> >>>> - what are your plans for support of OWL2? >>> We need to distinguish between editing and inferencing support for >>> OWL 2. >>> >>> Strictly speaking we already support editing OWL 2 ontologies - just >>> add the properties such as owl:key and owl:propertyChain (or import >>> a model that defines them) and use the generic form editors to use >>> them. >> >> well, of course > > I just went through the list of new features in OWL 2 and I think that > property chains are really the only feature that actually requires a > new > editor, most of the other things are just new property names and > types. > From those other features we could wait and see how frequently they > are really used in the real world. My impression is that a lot of the > suggested OWL 2 constructs have been inspired by theoretical > considerations and less so for practical reasons.
hm, no i don't think so. punning for example is a very practical feature. a lot of the new classes and properties are arguably quite practical too. others may be more there more for theoretical reasons or reasons of coompleteness but i think that doesn't hurt either. > Please, with any comment on OWL 2 support in TopBraid, keep in mind > that > OWL 2 is still work in progress. Its final release may cover a > different subset of the current drafts, and we are not in a position > to > follow each intermediate stage of the evolving spec. I wouldn't be > surprised if the official OWL 2 spec will look very different or not > be > finalized at all. Unlike some open-source research tools like Protege > 4, our goal is not to support research and experiments but to deliver > stable features, and to deliver additional low-risk features that meet > our customers' requirements (such as extensive SPARQL support). of course. i don't expect you to faihtfully implement any new draft. i was just alarmed by your announcement not to integrate pellet2 and asking myself (and you) how you plan to support OWL2 in the future. > >>> Other options include using Pellet 2 if someone wants to contribute >>> a plug-in for that (see other discussion on this list). >> >> i saw that, thanks. still... this seems to be a business thing and i >> certainly don't expect you to make all your rationales public. >> however, TBC isn't exactly a cheap product and the nice intergration >> of OWL support including inference and pellets conflict resolution >> facilities is one of the central selling points. while a third party >> plugin is certainly a much better solution than no integration at all >> it still hurts a bit that after shelling out so much money i still >> have to relay on third party support for certain features. well, >> that's just how i feel about it and i don't question that you have >> some good reasons for your decision as well. > > I think you are addressing the wrong people here. TopQuadrant did not > change anything, but the Pellet developers changed their licensing > scheme so that it becomes far more difficult to even ship Pellet as > part > of our (closed source, commercial) offering. Also again, we cannot > make > every small fraction of our user community happy (even though we try > what we can). We made the survey and there was almost zero interest > in > OWL 2 among our users. oh. well, in that case... > >> could you provide some hints and information on how to write such a >> plugin in a seperate post? i don't think i can do it but maybe it >> isn't that hard? or maybe it just helps the process get started :-) > > I am reworking the documentation and will provide an example > inferencing > plug-in. Release date would be the same as for 3.0 final. that'd be fine! > >>>> - will you add further support for quads (e.g. in the triple view)? >>> The TBC support for named graphs is such that you will have a >>> different base URI for each named graph. Since the Triples View can >>> be filtered by base URIs you can essentially see each named graph >>> individually. >> >> yep, but it would be nice to see at a glance if triples occur in more >> than one graph(and in which ones specifically) - or in general: >> having >> more shortcuts to graphs from the interface. > > Yes we may add more named graph support in the future. In the > meantime > I hope you know that you can mouse over the icon next to each triple > on > a form to see the home named graph in a tool tip? yes, but thanks for mentioning it. and thanks for taking the time to discuss this thomas --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Composer Users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-composer-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
