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

Re: OWL2 Feedback from Lilly

From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 11:47:19 +0000
Message-Id: <F4489B63-E689-4A0A-BDAF-6C2040A092F2@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: public-owl-comments@w3.org, Susie M Stephens <STEPHENS_SUSIE_M@LILLY.COM>
To: Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>

I am sending this email as a representative of Oxford/Manchester and  
NOT in my capacity as member/co-chair of the OWL Working Group.

In fairness to the researchers involved I should state for the record  
that:

- the OWL QL profile is largely based on work carried out by  
researchers from the UniversitÓ di Roma "La Sapienza" and the Free  
University of Bozen-Bolzano;

- the OWL RL profile is based on work carried out by many  
researchers, with affiliations including Philips, MIT Sloan, Oxford/ 
Manchester, Karlsruhe, Galway, Oracle and RPI/UMB to name but a few.

Regards,
Ian



On 24 Jan 2009, at 09:44, Frank van Harmelen wrote:

>
> Susie Stephens wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Personally, I feel the same.
> (see my other messages to the list for more technical comments by  
> our group)
>
> Frank.
>    ----
>
>
> -- 
> Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl		http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh
> Working on the Large Knowledge Collider	http://www.LarKC.eu
>
Received on Saturday, 24 January 2009 11:48:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 24 January 2009 11:48:10 GMT