W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > September 2010

Re: OWL 2?

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 22:02:39 -0400
To: nathan@webr3.org
Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1284775359.28722.401.camel@waldron>
On Sat, 2010-09-18 at 02:15 +0100, Nathan wrote:
> Hi All,
> Apologies for this mail as it may not have a direct answer, but unsure 
> where else to ask. I often hear a general sentiment of negativity 
> towards OWL 2, implying that there's something wrong with it, that it's 
> not practical or not for the masses only for the academics.
> Simply, I don't understand or follow this thought and am probably 
> missing something obvious, can any one enlighten me?
> Hopefully this isn't a sore subject or something that shouldn't be 
> spoken about, and obviously no offence to anybody - just if somebody 
> could fill me in on the background behind the sentiment and why this 
> conclusion has been (I think?) reached, could they let me know - on or 
> off list.
> Best,
> Nathan
> ps: this really isn't intended to spark a bit debate or war - even that 
> sentence may show just how little I understand any background on this topic.

I'm too biased to have any useful opinion here (I was a W3C staff
contact for the OWL Working Group), but I'm curious whether the
sentiments you've heard have been against OWL in general, or against OWL
2 and in favor of OWL 1?  I've heard a little bit of grumbling from OWL
1 folks who didn't see the need for the OWL 2 features, but (in the
feedback I saw) they were dramatically outweighed by the folks who
wanted the new features of OWL 2.

In terms of who supports OWL 2, I can refer you to the official
implementation report, as of a year ago:

If you follow the links in the first column, you'll more about who is
behind the implementation.   This doesn't really answer your question,
though, since even if these were all academic (they are not), it
wouldn't speak to the user base.

   -- Sandro
Received on Saturday, 18 September 2010 02:02:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:22 UTC