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

Re: OWL without RDF

From: William Bug <William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 19:31:28 -0500
Message-Id: <1C14CB64-F827-489A-9636-B57CC7278DF4@DrexelMed.edu>
Cc: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Many thanks, Jim.

I saw posts by you and others - as well as links to more detailed -  
and very recent - discussions.

These are all very helpful.

I was particularly interested in the proposal you, Ora Lassilla, and  
others have worked on to "absorb" much of the OWL Lite constructs  
into RDF++ (I believe that is the name being used - two proposals -  
the summary of which you give here - http://www.nabble.com/ 
perspectives-on-OWL-v.next-and-RDF-tf2624829.html) - minus many of  
the class axioms and Datatype Properties, but including  
owl:disjointWith.

I recall reading some on this in the past, but given these issues  
related to OWL 1.1, those proposals take on a whole new semantic  
value now - pun[ning] intended.	;-)

I also can definitely see the sense in the argument when trying to  
determine where to go next, there is need to achieve a balance  
between simplicity to catalyze wider adoption and the need to provide  
new functionality to a subset of users.  I think its actually a four  
way balance:
	simplicity - robustness - performance/scalability - expressivity

These characteristics are not necessarily exclusive of - or the  
inverse of - one another, though usually performance scales with the  
inverse of expressivity, at least when comparing across very large  
differences in expressivity.

The position you choose to target in this space really depends on  
what you are trying to achieve, obviously.

Cheers,
Bill


On Nov 16, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Jim Hendler wrote:

> actually, we're trying to move the discussion to public-owl-dev@w3.org
> there's a thread there that expresses some of my concerns about  
> moving away from the OWL syntax - given that the primary tools out  
> there right now still assume the OWL is integrated with the RDF  
> graph...
>
> At 2:52 PM -0500 11/16/06, William Bug wrote:
> As I expected, the experts are listening.  :-)
>
> Many thanks, Holger.  That's extremely important to know.
>
> I will dig into the thread for more detail.  One main concern would  
> be whether that was just a token gesture to stay compatible for  
> now, as opposed to a commitment to remain compatible, until or  
> unless an effective alternative is provided to representing very  
> large knowledgebases in RDF.
>
> I think more than anything I was a bit overwhelmed by the  
> collective picture given by those half-dozen or so presentations  
> from last week's meeting.  The meeting seemed "fresh" enough, so  
> that it could be expected to be reflective of the status quo.  I  
> assume there was much heated discussion during the meeting, that  
> would have filled out such detail - or such has been carried out on  
> the owl-dev list.
>
> I suppose it's also a good idea to dig into the OWL Extensions list  
> hosted by Jim Hendler's lab:
>         http://lists.mindswap.org/mailman/listinfo/owl
>
> Cheers,
> Bill
>
>
> On Nov 16, 2006, at 2:33 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>
>
> However, I'd point out, in the last document, where they describe a  
> mapping of OWL 1.1 to RDF, they make the following caveat:
> Not every OWL 1.1 ontology can be serialized in RDF. In particular,  
> ontologies using the following features of OWL 1.1 cannot be  
> serialized:
>    1. punning and
>    2. annotations on axioms.
>
> Please see a recent thread on the public-owl-dev mailing list about  
> this: http://www.nabble.com/Limitations-of-OWL-1.1-to-RDF-mapping- 
> tf2639224.html
>
> Bijan states:
> "The RDF mapping has lagged behind the others, but the plan is to
> extend the mapping to cover these cases."
>
> Holger
> TopQuadrant, Inc.
> http://www.topbraidcomposer.com
> http://composing-the-semantic-web.blogspot.com/
>
>
> Bill Bug
> Senior Research Analyst/Ontological Engineer
>
> Laboratory for Bioimaging  & Anatomical Informatics
> www.neuroterrain.org
> Department of Neurobiology & Anatomy
> Drexel University College of Medicine
> 2900 Queen Lane
> Philadelphia, PA    19129
> 215 991 8430 (ph)
> 610 457 0443 (mobile)
> 215 843 9367 (fax)
>
>
> Please Note: I now have a new email - William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu
>
>
> -- 
> Prof James Hendler                              hendler@cs.umd.edu
> Dept of Computer Science                      http://www.cs.umd.edu/ 
> ~hendler
> AV Williams Bldg                          301-405-2696 (work)
> Univ of Maryland                             301-405-6707 (Fax)
> College Park, MD 20853 USA
>

Bill Bug
Senior Research Analyst/Ontological Engineer

Laboratory for Bioimaging  & Anatomical Informatics
www.neuroterrain.org
Department of Neurobiology & Anatomy
Drexel University College of Medicine
2900 Queen Lane
Philadelphia, PA    19129
215 991 8430 (ph)
610 457 0443 (mobile)
215 843 9367 (fax)


Please Note: I now have a new email - William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu
Received on Friday, 17 November 2006 00:32:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:45 GMT