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

Re: comments on RDF mapping

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:32:19 -0400
Message-Id: <4F428175-7DB0-4EF8-B6F1-9949A3E9E727@cs.rpi.edu>
Cc: Ian Horrocks <Ian.Horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>

very helpful, thanks -- it's clear there's a lot been done and out  
there, it's just sometimes tricky to know where to look first - be  
nice when this WG is done and there's "one stop shopping" for OWL  
again...


On Oct 23, 2007, at 1:26 PM, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> On Oct 23, 2007, at 2:17 PM, Jim Hendler wrote:
>
>> One thing what would help me a lot, and maybe reduce some of my  
>> confusion would be if there was a single table somewhere of all  
>> the vocabulary terms that will now be in OWL, perhaps with a * as  
>> to which ones are syntactic sugar.  As far as I can tell from the  
>> current document, most of my existing OWL would be no longer DL,  
>> since it lacks type information, and there'd be a lot of new  
>> vocabulary items to learn to fix it -- but I can't really evaluate  
>> this because it is so difficult to map from the new syntax to the  
>> old.  There are 10s of thousands of OWL documents out in the  
>> world, I'd like to try to figure out the effort to migrate and  
>> this would help
>>   Could this be done automagically?  Would a "convert to OWL11"  
>> program be possible
>
> Yes. The OWL API reads OWL 1.0 documents and can write OWL1.1  
> documents. Protege will in fact do this.
>
> IIRC, there are some issues remaining (esp. involving declarations).
>
> I also started on an XSLT that would go from the XML syntax to  
> either 1.1 RDF/XML or (if posssible) OWL 1.0 RDF/XML.
>
>> - again, this is because I'm confused for a lot of these  
>> predicates as to whether they are necessary or just useful to  
>> implementors (but ignorable my many users).
>>  Another thing that would help, apparently several of the  
>> reasoners (Pellet, Fact+, etc.) now handle OWL11 - do any of the  
>> editors?  Does Topbraid?
> [snip]
>
> Others have answered, but I'll also point to the OWLED wiki page:
> 	http://code.google.com/p/owl1-1/wiki/Implementations
>
> It's a bit out of date. I posted a note saying we should migrate  
> this to the OWLWG wiki, presuming that we can find a space that  
> will be maintained ad infinitum.
>
> TopBraid certainly does, and is entirely Jena based. Holger, on  
> public-owl-dev Pellet has both OWL API and Jena front ends.
>
> Here's the annoucement:
> 	http://composing-the-semantic-web.blogspot.com/2007/02/announcing- 
> topbraid-composer-20.html
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.

"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 Tuesday, 23 October 2007 17:35:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:26 GMT