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

Re: OWL vs RDF

From: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:46:11 +0100
To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Message-ID: <uiri75p8s.fsf@newcastle.ac.uk>

>>>>> "Alan" == Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> writes:

  Alan> Well it would be educational to get your view on what you can
  Alan> you do with owl without a reasoner that's not easier to do
  Alan> without owl?

You can do lots of things with OWL without a reasoner. The Gene
Ontology is representable in OWL, for example, and uses a simple
enough expressivity that you could do without a reasoner easily
enough. Of course, you need to use some kind of "reasoning" engine,
but something which understands transitive closure is enough. 

Whether it's "easier" to do without OWL depends on what the
alternatives are. You could also represent GO style semantics in RDF
(although, I think, the existential nature of part_of would not be
explicit), or indeed anything else capable of representing a

  Alan> And how are you to know when you do need the reasoner and when
  Alan> you don't?

When you use enough of the expressivity of OWL, where "enough" is
relatively undefined. 

Received on Thursday, 26 October 2006 10:46:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:52:28 UTC