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

Re: OWL 2 is now a W3C Proposed Recommendation

From: Bene Rodriguez-Castro <beroca@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:20:24 +0100
Message-ID: <ea8cd28f0910131020n7da3a7abi4e4e9025d455491e@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
Thank you all for your comments.

> Please note that the file you were using (owl.owl) is in the process of
> being updated. Once that is complete and published you should be able to
> load it in the editor of your choice and have the same experience you did
> with the OWL 1 owl.owl file.

I was a bit puzzled not being able to find an OWL 2 specific file/URI
in the OWL 2 related documentation but not any more :)

> There are some people (myself included) who think this is not a good way to
> learn or explore OWL (1 or 2). There was quite a debate about it between me
> (anti) and Holger Knublauch (pro) recently which you might find interesting:
>  <http://www.w3.org/mid/B6D22E33-5332-4CF3-8582-F6A033BE4C7B@topquadrant.com>

Thanks for the interesting thread. As an OWL user, my idea was not to
use the owl.owl file as a starting point for new ontology models.
However, I find it useful when it is open on an ontology editor as a
separate "quick look-up kind-of reference card" of the OWL modelling
elements (specially for those less frequently used).

Bene Rodriguez
Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2009 17:20:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:18 UTC