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

Re: UFDTF Metamodeling Document

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 04:22:09 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20071130.042209.133073167.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: conrad.bock@nist.gov
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: "Conrad Bock" <conrad.bock@nist.gov>
Subject: RE: UFDTF Metamodeling Document
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:54:36 -0500

> Peter, 
> 
>  >  > Could you give some examples from the OWL and RDF metamodels?  
>  >  
>  >  For RDF:
> 
> Thanks, these are not comments on the metamodel, which is what we're
> concerned with, but I'll forward them to OMG for discussion there (BTW,
> the list is odm-ftf@omg.org, which you can also send mail to also).

How so?  Are those sections not the OMG metamodels for RDF and OWL?  If
the metamodels are based on fundamental misunderstandings of RDF and OWL
and how they interact is that not a problem?

>  >  Well, I'm not sure that a comment along the lines of:
>  >  
>  >  	This has too many inaccuracies to be accepted.
>  >  
>  >  would be appreciated. 
> 
> That would be true.  :) However, the concrete comments would be.  Bear
> in mind it's quite late in the game, it would have been helpful to have
> your input with the others during webont.

Yeah, well, there are only so many things that I can do.  For a while I
had time to look at the document, but there was no document to look at.
Later I did not have the time.

>  >  I have no idea what possible use the RDF and OWL metamodels could be
>  >  put to.
> 
> Boris put it very well in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Oct/0085.html
> where he says it is very useful to have a data storage specification for
> the language (his message would make quite a nice ad for OMG,
> actually!).  It is important that such a storage specification be
> generally agreed if the stored ontologies are to be widely accessible.
> It isn't good for W3C and OMG to adopt different data storage
> specifications for OWL.

I do agree that having a specification of how OWL ontologies could be
stored is a good idea.  However, in my opinion the OMG metamodel for OWL
are not suitable for this use.

The structural specification for OWL in SS&FS is much better, at least
for OWL 1.1.  I would be easy to turn it into a structural specification
for OWL DL that I think would be much better than the OMG one.

I also think that using the OMG metamodel for RDF would be detrimental
to the use of RDF.  

> Conrad

peter
Received on Friday, 30 November 2007 09:39:09 GMT

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