W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: OWL 2 -- Call for Implementations, new Drafts

From: Azamat <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:19:38 +0300
Message-ID: <002401c9ef78$2d8a6b90$a104810a@homepc>
To: "'SW-forum'" <semantic-web@w3.org>, <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
Cc: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
SH: While the Working Group is interested in feedback, we do ask that people 
send their comments to our public comments list if they want us to read
them, discuss them as a group, and reply.  (Also, please do NOT cross post 
to that list, since it may cause other people to accidentally
submit comments if they reply to you.)  It helps if the comments suggest 
specific, practical things we should do."

OK, without the cross-posting. Now what i tried to hint several times in a 
soft way. With all my esteem to all its contributers and editors, 
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/, in my humble but frank opinion, the 
project, if not foundered, is certainly far away from the status of being a 
standard, even "recommended standard", both in its parts and in the whole. 
As an excuse, it must be mentioned that this group faced more complex task: 
to merge different pieces into a single whole. For each part of work, a 
listing of principal discrepancies and inconsistences and contradictories 
could be presented, with one pragmatic suggestion: since it is a 
time-consuming job to read all these pieces and bits, w3c could assign the 
critical report to our company in due course. The knowledge of ontology and 
semantics applied leaves much to be desired, and insisting on this version 
will do nothing but harm the idea of semantic web, imho.

Azamat Abdoullaev
EIS Encyclopedic Intelligent Systems Ltd
http://www.standardontology.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
To: "Azamat" <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>
Cc: "'SW-forum'" <semantic-web@w3.org>; "[ontolog-forum] " 
<ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net>; <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 3:06 AM
Subject: Re: OWL 2 -- Call for Implementations, new Drafts


>
>> SH: "we expect to proceed to Proposed Recommendation and Recommendation."
>>
>>
>>
>> What i like with the OWL 0, its high understanding of the subject: 
>> "Ontology
>> is a term borrowed from philosophy that refers to the science of 
>> describing
>> the kinds of entities in the world and how they are related."
>>
>> And what i am missing with the OWL 2, the former definition, belittled 
>> as:
>> "Ontologies are formalized vocabularies of terms, often covering a 
>> specific
>> domain and shared by a community of users. They specify the definitions 
>> of
>> terms by describing their relationships with other terms in the 
>> ontology."
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/
>>
>> Here are more inconsistencies. "OWL 2 is a knowledge representation
>> language, designed to formulate, exchange and reason with knowledge about 
>> a
>> domain of interest...these basic notions: Axioms: the basic statements 
>> that
>> an OWL ontology expresses; Entities: elements used to refer to real-world
>> objects; Expressions: combinations of entities to form complex 
>> descriptions
>> from basic ones".
>>
>> Let's see what entities are here. "All atomic constituents of statements, 
>> be
>> they objects (John, Mary), categories (female) or relations (married) are
>> called entities. In OWL 2, we denote objects as individuals, categories 
>> as
>> classes and relations as properties."
>>
>> Are all these entities, individuals, classes, properties, entities of
>> real-world objects?
>>
>> In the primer there is a heading. "Advanced class relationships: (class)
>> intersection, union and complement",
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-owl2-primer-20090611/
>>
>> If somebody proposing a modeling language "designed to represent rich and
>> complex knowledge about things, groups of things, and relations between
>> things", it would be wise to distinguish the formal set theory 
>> operations,
>> f: SxS to S, from the relationships proper, R = SxS, where S is an 
>> unordered
>> collection of distinct elements (members, objects, entities), and R is an
>> ordered collection of distinct elements. The samples of pairing
>> relationships between sets (classes) are "is equivalent of", "is a
>> complement of", "is a subset of", "has the same cardinality", etc., 
>> between
>> elements "is equal to", "is less than", etc. In algebra of relation, we 
>> do
>> operations (binary) on relations (binary).
>>
>> I mentioned before with other standard candidate and have to repeat 
>> again:
>> "Strongly believe any standardization work involving ontology and 
>> semantic
>> technology standards needs a deep fundamental research tested with 
>> effective
>> knowledge and content systems and real world applications."
>>
>> I'd add: an open public debate as far as "the W3C OWL 2 Web Ontology
>> Language (OWL) is a Semantic Web language...'', and as far as standards 
>> are
>> today may go as binding laws, both for humans and machines.
>
> While the Working Group is interested in feedback, we do ask that people
> send their comments to our public comments list if they want us to read
> them, discuss them as a group, and reply.  (Also, please do NOT cross
> post to that list, since it may cause other people to accidentally
> submit comments if they reply to you.)  It helps if the comments suggest
> specific, practical things we should do.
>
> Of course, if you just meant this as a public discussion item, that's
> fine.
>
> (My apologies for cross posting, but I thought it was important to
> clarify the comment procedure in all the places this message was
> posted.)
>
>     - Sandro
>
>> Azamat Abdoullaev
>>
>> http://www.semanticwww.com
>>
>> http://www.eis.com.cy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
>> To: <semantic-web@w3.org>; <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
>> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 8:14 PM
>> Subject: OWL 2 -- Call for Implementations, new Drafts
>>
>>
>> > OWL 2, a compatible extension to OWL 1, is now a W3C Candidate
>> > Recommendation.  This means that if you are a developer of an OWL
>> > system, it may be a good time to start adopting OWL 2.  The design is
>> > not likely to change now, and this is the time to tell us about any
>> > problems that come up during implementation.  Also, the primer, quick
>> > reference, and new features document, (which are non-normative 
>> > documents
>> > intended to help people understand OWL) are now at Last Call, 
>> > indicating
>> > we think they are essentially done.
>> >
>> > A good place to start is the OWL 2 Document Overview:
>> >
>> >   http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/
>> >
>> > It gives a brief overview of OWL2, and offers a guide to each of the
>> > other OWL 2 documents.  We'll be tracking what we know of
>> > implementations here:
>> >
>> >   http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Implementations
>> >
>> >
>> > Please send implementation reports and any other comments to
>> > public-owl-comments@w3.org by 30 July.  Soon after that, we expect to
>> > proceed to Proposed Recommendation and Recommendation.  Discussion
>> > among OWL developers is welcome at public-owl-dev@w3.org.
>> >
>> >  -- Sandro Hawke, W3C Staff Contact, OWL Working Group
>> >
>> > 
Received on Wednesday, 17 June 2009 18:20:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:57 GMT