W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > November 2007

Re: RDFS 3.0 and Oracle OWL Prime

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:55:09 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20071126.095509.248375733.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: hendler@cs.rpi.edu
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

Gee, now I'm really confused.


I would have thought that the talk document

http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/DatabaseAndOntology/2007-10-18_AlanWu/RDBMS-RDFS-OWL-InferenceEngine--AlanWu_20071018.pdf
A Scalable RDBMS-Based Inference Engine for RDFS/OWL
Oracle New England Development Center
alan.wu@oracle.com

was more than some person "looking at some of the different things
Oracle has proposed".   

I was using this document instead of the Oracle white paper

http://www.oracle.com/technology/tech/semantic_technologies/pdf/semantic11g_dataint_twp.pdf

as it has more information.

Although the document doesn't have too much in the way of details, I was
taking it as more-or-less official, particularly as it has been linked
to from the WG's Wiki for some time now, and the Oracle rep (who appears
to be the author of the document) hasn't complained.

peter


From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Subject: Re: RDFS 3.0 and Oracle OWL Prime (was Re: wiki page on fragments extended)
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:31:33 -0500

> Peter- As best I can tell, Oracle has not released a formal  
> definition of the 11g support on their site, the sites that you are  
> looking at are from people looking at some of the different things  
> Oracle has proposed - the set I used is from their first announcement  
> and a presentation at the SemTech conference, which was back in  
> March.  If they've decided to cover more of OWL, that's great!
>   Anyway, I wasn't, in your words, justifying it by claims that its  
> constructs correspond to Oracle, just pointing out the resemblance to  
> the early Oracle definition.  I think the language stands on the  
> other properties, which i outlined
>   We have an Oracle rep on this committee, maybe Zhe Wu knows the  
> details
>   -JH
> 
> On Nov 26, 2007, at 8:21 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> > From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
> > Subject: Re: wiki page on fragments extended
> > Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:48:34 -0500
> >
> >> Uli - I should have included the URI - it's http://www.w3.org/2007/
> >> OWL/wiki/Fragments - not connected to the Tractable Fragments
> >> document since I didn't think it belonged there at this point
> >>   -JH
> >
> > This page claims that the constructs in the RDFS 3.0 proposal are
> > "almost identical to those included in Oracle's OWL Prime", but the  
> > most
> > complete information I can find
> > http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/DatabaseAndOntology/ 
> > 2007-10-18_AlanWu/RDBMS-RDFS-OWL-InferenceEngine--AlanWu_20071018.pdf
> > indicates that OWL Prime includes hasValue, allValuesFrom,
> > someValuesFrom, and complementOf which are not in the RDFS 3.0  
> > proposal.
> > The addition of these constructs makes OWL Prime very different  
> > from the
> > proposed RDFS 3.0.
> >
> > The other OWL subsets supported by Oracle also appear to be quite
> > different from the proposed RDFS 3.0.  OWLSIF appears to include
> > hasValue, allValuesFrom, and someValuesFrom (as they are in pD*).
> > RDFS++ appears to only add sameAs and InverseFunctionalProperty to  
> > RDFS.
> >
> > So, although RDFS 3.0 may indeed be a reasonable fragment, I do not
> > think that it can be justified by claims that its constructs are  
> > similar
> > to what Oracle supports.
> >
> >
> > Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> > Bell Labs Research
> 
> "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would  
> it?." - Albert Einstein
> 
> Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
> Tetherless World Constellation Chair
> Computer Science Dept
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 26 November 2007 15:11:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:27 GMT