W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-comments@w3.org > January 2009

OWL2 Feedback from Lilly

From: Susie M Stephens <STEPHENS_SUSIE_M@LILLY.COM>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:23:18 -0500
To: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF71BE56E9.BFDDEDE4-ON85257547.008004D9-85257547.00807A77@EliLilly.lilly.com>

Here's a little feedback on OWL2 from Lilly.

I'd be happy to introduce you to the people who made the comments.

Susie


1. Personally, I feel OWL2 is a wrap-up of different recent efforts in the
OWL community from different research forces, such as EL from Dresden, QL
and RL from Manchester/Oxford. Given the usage of OWL 1.0 is quite limited
in the industry compare to the usage of RDF, it may cost many extra efforts
and is very challenging to teach system developers to use new OWL2, in
particular, identifying different subsets of OWL2 for developers with
limited logic background. Nevertheless, new features on DataProperty
related predicates could be useful for semantic application developers in
defining and reasoning over their data and metadata.


2.  Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax
       http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-owl2-syntax-20081202/

   Section 1, "introduction", especially like the concept of the ontology
   modularization - it will facilitate the ontology reuse and it is an
   issue that I'm facing today.  I hope that in the future, we can have
   more support in this area.
   Section 2.3, "Alternatively, an IRI it can be abbreviated as a CURIE
   [CURIE]."  - The "it" here seems redundant.
   Section 3.4 "Imports" - after the import, will the new ontology own the
   imported entities from the imported ontologies?
   Section 3.5 "Ontology Annotations" - good to have, very useful meta data
   for an ontology
   Section 4.1"Numbers".  It is interesting to see the differences between
   equality and identity - other than "-0" and "+0", are there any other
   examples that show two numbers are equal, yet not identical?  Where
   should we pay more attention to the difference?
   Section 4.3 "Boolean values".  Can we also have "Yes" and "No" as the
   lexical values? "Yes" and "No" are frequently used and are very natural
   answer to a lot of questions
   Section 5.9 "Metamodeling" - pretty good explanation
   Section 9 "Axims" - really like it - it seems that it extends previous
   version  and becomes a lot more descriptive - definitely very helpful in
   modeling and reasoning

Mapping to RDF Graphs
       http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-owl2-mapping-to-rdf-20081202/

It is great that W3C defines the mapping from OWL 2 to RDF graphs - it is
very helpful when we move the ontologies around.  I didn't get to all the
details - it seems more for the people who are building semantic tools.  As
a data modeler,  I just want to ensure that the transformation does not
change the logical meaning of the ontologies, which is clearly stated in
the introduction. Thanks for stating this clearly at the beginning.
Received on Friday, 23 January 2009 23:24:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 23 January 2009 23:24:32 GMT