W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > August 2006

Re: OWL Lite or DL?

From: Larry Hunter <Larry.Hunter@uchsc.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:28:03 -0600
To: John Barkley <jbarkley@nist.gov>
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Matthias Samwald <samwald@gmx.at>, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Message-Id: <1156264083.30263.37.camel@fast.UCHSC.EDU>

On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 10:05 -0400, John Barkley wrote:

> I also think we should consider a recommended practice of using OWL Lite or
> DL where possible (i.e., when the knowledge base can be expressed in no more
> than DL).

I don't want to get into a religious war here, but I think the
advantages of OWL-DL are generally oversold.   The crux of the above
statement is what "can" be expressed in OWL-DL.

In my experience, many complex knowledge modeling projects benefit from
the use of metaclasses.  For example, if the domain of a relationship is
limited to several specific classes, it makes sense to model those
classes as members of a particular metaclass (i.e., one that supports a
particular slot type).   There are gyrations one can do to avoid
metaclasses (the GO/OBO folks have really been trying hard), but I think
that these load the knowledge models with counter-intuitive structures
for very little gain.  The "non-computability" of OWL-Full is a
worst-case problem that doesn't seem to me to have been a practical
concern in many real-world cases.

Larry
Received on Tuesday, 22 August 2006 16:28:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:44 GMT