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

Re: OWL vs RDF

From: William Bug <William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 12:43:37 -0700
Message-Id: <0679623D-EE23-4740-865A-4CB82EDC70E7@DrexelMed.edu>
Cc: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
To: Robert Stevens <robert.stevens@manchester.ac.uk>
Thanks for the info, Robert.

No problemo - we're all working with between 10 - 25% of the  
resources we really need to get to all the various tasks that need to  
be done in a timely manner.

I just keep mentioning this issue as a "gentle" prod, because I found  
the ProtegeOWL tutorial immensely helpful when I read quite a while  
back and think it should probably be REQUIRED reading for everyone  
both using ProtegeOWL and expecting to have at least a general  
understanding of how to make best use OWL's expressivity.

Having the OWL v1.1 & Data Property issues taken into account in that  
tutorial would be extremely useful.

Cheers,
Bill

On Oct 27, 2006, at 12:03 PM, Robert Stevens wrote:

> the Protege OWL tutorial will be updated "real soon now". We'll be  
> doing OWL 1..1 (there wasn't any point updating before 1.1), but  
> also including stuff about data type properties (which can now be  
> reasoned over well) and some stuff about instances. finally,  
> there's a whole lot of  Protege stuff to change....
>
> I wouldn't, however, hold your breath. Perhaps it will be ready   
> early next year.
>
> robert.At 18:45 27/10/2006, William Bug wrote:
>> This is a very important point.  Thanks, Phil.
>>
>> As is spelled out in the wonderful ProtegeOWL Tutorial PDF (which  
>> would be wonderful to have updated a bit), leaning on the reasoner  
>> during early phases of ontology construction is very helpful, but  
>> ultimately once you have more "hardened" components, you can  
>> "save" the inferred graph and distribute that for the user community.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bill
>>
>> On Oct 27, 2006, at 3:54 AM, Phillip Lord wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Stevens <  
>>>>>>>> robert.stevens@manchester.ac.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>   Robert> There's another answer of using the reasoner by building
>>>   Robert> your ontology to take advantage of its capabilities. the
>>>   Robert> conceptual lego approach relies on the reasoner.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Incidentally, Robert's point reminded me of another thing you can do
>>> without a reasoner.
>>>
>>> You can use your reasoner to build your ontology, and then deploy it
>>> without. One of the main reasons that people don't like DL  
>>> reasoners s
>>> the overhead that they add to architectures. I think that this is a
>>> reasonable point but, in general, only at deployment time. When
>>> building your ontology, it's not that much hassle to have a
>>> reasoner -- my experience suggests it saves your more time than it
>>> costs you.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>

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, 27 October 2006 19:43:48 GMT

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