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

Re: RDFS 3.0 and Oracle OWL Prime

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:34:07 -0500
Message-Id: <2725A329-F2C9-41FB-B650-F25F525EB04A@cs.rpi.edu>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
I'm  willing to believe you - but an earlier slide stack (which I  
cannot share since I got it under NDA) had some different info, and I  
have been unable to get my hands on the OWL 11g documentation, which  
would, of course, be the best place to find the answer.  But I stick  
to my main point, which is that it doesn't matter



On Nov 26, 2007, at 9:55 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>

"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 15:45:45 GMT

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