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

Re: OWL2 Feedback from Lilly

From: Susie M Stephens <STEPHENS_SUSIE_M@LILLY.COM>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:54:19 -0500
To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: public-owl-comments@w3.org, Yimin Wang <WANG_YIMIN@LILLY.COM>
Message-ID: <OFBA5F0BD0.51D52B2C-ON8525754C.00572CCD-8525754C.00575F60@EliLilly.lilly.com>

Hi Ian,

I'd just sent the following response to Bob Powers:

 Yimin Wang wrote the feedback, so I've cc'ed him in this mail. In his
 feedback he meant that picking the right profile is hard.

 He also adds: " In particular, it is very difficult to teach common
 users/software developer to understand the differences between profiles.
 From my experience, most actual users cannot clearly understand the
 difference between OWL and RDF. I think the most important thing is to
 clearly tell people "when to use what" by introducing some comprehensive
 examples / tutorials."

 Cheers,

 Susie









                                                                           
             Ian Horrocks                                                  
             <horrocks@cs.man.                                             
             ac.uk>                                                     To 
                                       Susie M Stephens                    
             01/28/2009 08:15          <STEPHENS_SUSIE_M@LILLY.COM>        
             AM                                                         cc 
                                       public-owl-comments@w3.org          
                                                                   Subject 
                                       Re: OWL2 Feedback from Lilly        
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           




Hi Susie,

Thanks for the feedback.

Can you please ask the person who made comment (1) to clarify if "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" was
intended to mean:

- that it would be a good idea to identify existing subsets of OWL2
(aka profiles) that are appropriate for people with a limited logic
background, or
- that it would be a good idea to have (an) additional subset(s) of
OWL2 that is/are targeted at people with a limited logic background, or
- that it is difficult for people with a limited logic background to
identify which OWL2 subset is appropriate for their application, or
- something else?

Thanks,
Ian



On 23 Jan 2009, at 23:23, Susie M Stephens wrote:

>
> 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 Wednesday, 28 January 2009 15:55:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 28 January 2009 15:55:02 GMT