- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 12:24:47 +0000
- To: Mike Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com>
- Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Thanks for that. I'm still not sure that I understood the point of the comment, other than general grumbling/worries about OWL diverging from RDF -- which is actually completely wrong as OWL2 still includes the Full variant and even allows *more* RDF graphs to be treated as OWL DL. Does anyone think that they understand the statement that OWL2 "won't use RDF itself"? Is this more confusion about the surface syntax? Shouldn't we contact Taylor Cowan and ask for clarification? Ian On 2 Feb 2009, at 19:39, Mike Smith wrote: > > A slightly longer version of this comment appeared on the jena-dev > list and is archived at [1]. I believe it provides additional context > that may be helpful in understanding the question and formulating a > response. > > [1] http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/jena-dev/message/37828 > > On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 12:35, Taylor Cowan <taylor_cowan@yahoo.com> > wrote: >> >> I'm a bit disappointed with owl2. Just stepping back, considering >> the domain from the perspective of an internet technologist >> unfamiliar with semantic web technologies, it's probably confusing >> that the language used to order, model, or govern the semantic web >> (which is to be composed of RDF in various manifestations, RDFa >> for example) won't use RDF itself, and requires tooling to >> translate between itself and the lowest common denominator of the >> sem web. >> >> I'm aware that the working group is composed of experts who know >> much more about this stuff than I do, but I fear that OWL2 will >> dampen the growth of the practical semantic web unless it's >> extremely complimentary and supportive of RDF. > > -- > Mike Smith > > Clark & Parsia >
Received on Monday, 9 February 2009 12:25:21 UTC