W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > February 2009

Re: OWL2 and RDF

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 08:59:26 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20090209.085926.182186797.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk
Cc: msmith@clarkparsia.com, public-owl-wg@w3.org

I expect that this comment is more about the increased visibility and
usability of the non-RDF syntaxes.  Pointing out that RDF is still the
primary syntax for exchange of OWL would probably be a good response.

Of course, informal contact would probably be a good idea.

peter


From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: OWL2 and RDF
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 12:24:47 +0000

> 
> 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 13:59:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 9 February 2009 13:59:27 GMT