- From: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 15:12:41 +0100
- To: Marijke Keet <keet@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Chris Mungall <cjm@fruitfly.org>, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
>>>>> "MK" == Marijke Keet <keet@inf.unibz.it> writes: MK> I like more expressivity as well, but then, I'm not implementing MK> systems where I'd have to wait 'long' for query answers or see MK> my computer hang upon classifying 1 instance in an 50-concept MK> small ontology (with the latest pellet for owl 1.1). I did try MK> to load in Protégé and SWOOP the FMA-lite, which is a 43MB OWL MK> file. It failed. It's worth pointing out here, that the problem may be OWL rather than the underlying semantics. The OWL syntax does tend to produce ontology explosions. MK> Reasoning over sections of the FMA that take into account only MK> some constructors is possible [1], which brings us back to your MK> earlier comment that "people have argued against more expressive MK> languages, in fact have argued with great force and vehemence,": I have this image of a protest march -- What do we want? -- Lower pay -- When do we want it? -- Tomorrow No one in the entirety of all history has ever argued for less expressivity in their languages (well O'Brien in 1984, but he's a fictional character), just a different compromise. Phil
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2007 14:13:48 UTC