W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > February 2012

Re: PROV-ISSUE-265 (TLebo): RL, why? [Ontology]

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 06:20:57 +0000
Message-ID: <4F472C49.3000505@ninebynine.org>
To: Provenance Working Group <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
CC: Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
It seems to me that the RL "requirement" is a *way* lesser issue than having a 
basic model that is easy to generate.

My suggestion would be push ahead with a "useful" ontology that captures a fair 
richness of provenance, and then later consider what could be traded off for RL 
compatibility.  But I do feel that expending significant effort on RL 
compatibility rather than focusing on an usefully descriptive ontology will 
probably be counter-productive at this stage.

In my experience, a substantial use of OWL ontologies is for documentation and 
testing purposes, not as part of a live application (though I suppose RL aims to 
change that?).

#g
--

On 24/02/2012 04:18, Provenance Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> PROV-ISSUE-265 (TLebo): RL, why? [Ontology]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/265
>
> Raised by: Timothy Lebo
> On product: Ontology
>
> The very recent and very hard constraint to ensure that PROV-O remains at OWL-RL expressivity is adding a lot of complication to the PROV-O team's ability to complete the ontology. VERY common restrictions that have been around for almost a decade and which provide a lot of insight are NOT permitted in OWL-RL.
>
>> From what I understand, we should stay with OWL-RL so that "it stays simple and people will adopt it". Which people, exactly, will refuse to encode RDF if the corresponding ontology is more expressive than OWL-RL?
>
> I called in when Ivan discussed this at F2F2, and I did NOT get the impression that the rest of the group now seems to have. He seemed to be advocating for the "scruffies", which we had recently named in the meeting. Linked Data is the new direction for the semantic web, and that community could not care less about OWL expressivity. RDF and SPARQL rule the day. There are no OWL reasoners to be found.
>
> I consider myself a member of the Linked Data community, but I also happen to appreciate a well designed OWL ontology. The Linked Data community thinks in terms of classes and predicates. All they care about is which properties lead from which classes and head to which other classes. That's it. Give them some examples and they're off running. Oh, and make your URIs dereferenceable.
>
> So I don't think that the Linked Data community is going to ignore PROV-DM based on its OWL profile.
>
> Are we trying to satisfy some _other_ community? If so, who are they, how many of them are there, what do they do, and what do they like?
>
> Thanks,
> Tim
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 06:33:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:56 GMT