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

Re: OWL vs RDF

From: Robert Stevens <robert.stevens@manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:45:28 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>,public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org

There's another answer of using the reasoner by building your 
ontology to take advantage of its capabilities. the conceptual lego 
approach relies on the reasoner.

Anecdotally, I've managed to miss out subsumption relationships by 
hand in ontologies as small as a dozen classes. Also, when building 
purely by hand, I've seen people introduce inconsistencies by 
asserting multiple inheritance across disjoint classes.

I would feel nervous at saying "there is a point when you need a 
reasoner", but I think building to take advantage of it is as close 
as I can get.

At 11:46 26/10/2006, Phillip Lord wrote:

> >>>>> "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 20:45:53 UTC

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