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

Re: OWL2 and RDF

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:03:57 +0100
Message-ID: <499053ED.7060903@w3.org>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
CC: ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk, msmith@clarkparsia.com, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Agree. This seems to be a recurring comment in many LC ones, we may have
to make some sort of a generic statement regarding that and beat the
bushes around it a bit...

Ivan

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf


Received on Monday, 9 February 2009 16:04:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 9 February 2009 16:04:34 GMT