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
  -JH
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 GMT

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