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

RE: UFDTF Metamodeling Document

From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:19:53 -0000
To: "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Cc: <conrad.bock@nist.gov>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000301c8333a$8c729b60$2711a8c0@wolf>

Hello,

I would like to second Peter's sentiment, and would like to give some concrete explanation why this is so. All sound and complete
reasoners for OWL DL that are currently out there do not use RDF-based storage. Similarly, ontology APIs that are designed to work
with OWL DL, such as (Manchester) OWL API and KAON2, are likewise not based at all on RDF, but on a storage mechanism that is quite
close to the metamodel presented in the structural specification document. In these tools, RDF is used just as an exchange syntax.

Therefore, I fully agree with Peter that basing OWL DL structural specification on the RDF metamodel is the wrong thing to do. 

Regards,

	Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Peter F. Patel-
> Schneider
> Sent: 30 November 2007 09:37
> To: alanruttenberg@gmail.com
> Cc: conrad.bock@nist.gov; public-owl-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: UFDTF Metamodeling Document
> 
> 
> From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: UFDTF Metamodeling Document
> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:11:28 -0500
> 
> >
> > On Nov 29, 2007, at 2:54 PM, Conrad Bock wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Agreed, however does it make sense for there to be a storage
> > mechanism for OWL specifically, rather than building on whatever
> > storage mechanism is chosen for RDF?
> >
> > -Alan
> 
> Absolutely.  Tools need to be able to store OWL axioms and facts as
> entities different from RDF triples.  In fact, building an OWL
> structural specification on top of an RDF storage methodology is
> probably the wrong thing to do.
> 
> peter
Received on Friday, 30 November 2007 10:20:50 GMT

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