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

Re: OWL DL and OWL Full

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:58:27 -0400
Message-Id: <4C7F1B4D-3E6D-4848-8D60-254274B792DF@cs.rpi.edu>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

Actually, best I can tell (I'm not an insider on Twine, or paid  
anything at this point) most of the Startups are using some OWL  
constructs on top of RDF(S) - basically the OWL property assertions  
(same, different, functional, inverseFunctional, transitive, inverse)  
and not much else.  I think if we end up naming that fragment then  
they will be happy to say that is what they are using
p.s. At the moment this is also pretty close to what Oracle provides  
in its OWL support.

On Oct 29, 2007, at 10:53 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
> Subject: OWL DL and OWL Full (was Re: comments on RDF mapping)
> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:16:11 -0400
>> I think Jeremy's comments raise an important issue that is sometimes
>> a bit confused in this WG list so far -- there's a tendency to use
>> "OWL" to mean "OWL DL" on the part of some people and to mean "OWL
>> FULL" (which is essentially the OWL vocabulary used w/o worrying
>> about the DL restrictions).  There are two important constituencies
>> who use the term differently - the more formal set which is well-
>> represented on the WG, and the people putting OWL to work in the sort
>> of broad applications like Twine, who are primarily using a little
>> OWL on big RDF graphs.  These may well grow together over time, but
>> at the moment I think it is very important that we be clear when we
>> work that both of these are important - and make sure when people say
>> things like "OWL 1.0 didn't allow" to realize that OWL 1.0 allowed a
>> lot of things in Full and less in DL.   The WG was unable to come to
>> a consensus that "OWL" should mean one of these or the other, and
>> thus we were careful to include the modifiers in both cases.  We need
>> to be very sure as we work on "OWL 1.1" that we are taking the same
>> care or we risk alienating one or the other of (at least) two
>> important user communities.
>>   -JH
> Is there any technical information available about Twine?  I can't  
> find
> out much information about it on the web site (http://www.twine.com/)
> except that it just went into private beta (whatever that is), that it
> is a product of Radar Networks (http://www.radarnetworks.com/), that
> there are some patented web-related techniques incorporated in it,  
> that
> there are lots of press release on it, and that you are the first
> advisor to Radar Networks.
> peter
> PS: I note that some of the press about Twine mentions OWL, without  
> any
>      modifier.  Perhaps you should address your words to the Twine
>      people as well.

"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, 29 October 2007 17:58:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:59 UTC