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

Re: OWL 2 is now a W3C Proposed Recommendation

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:34:41 -0400
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
Message-Id: <3B4C1B76-009E-4625-B905-534B33DBE08A@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Bene Rodriguez-Castro <beroca@gmail.com>
On 13 Oct 2009, at 13:20, Bene Rodriguez-Castro wrote:

> 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 :)

OWL 2 is *not quite done*. Yet :)

>> 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).

You might try:
	http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PR-owl2-quick-reference-20090922/
as well.

I tend to think, perhaps wrongly, that such use is in the minority  
(although people in that minority seem to like it :)). In Swoop, we  
used to follow links to things like rdf:type to the owl.owl file (or  
rdf.rdf file), but that process of loading the file cluttered the  
interface and was confusing (since it wasn't clear if the rdf.rdf was  
*part* of the model, or not). We switched to special casing those  
links to pop up documentation derived from the OWL 1 reference.

In the end, I don't think these *.* files are the best documentation,  
even as QRG, though they certainly can serve such a role in a pinch.

I think it could be interesting to have a version of the spec that  
was, er, "inverted" from a narrative structure to a term oriented  
structure. That structure would make sense as an RDF file. If one had  
a good viewer, it might work ok.

And there's nothing stopping you from producing one! :)

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2009 17:35:13 GMT

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