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

Re: OWL 2?

From: Paul Hermans <paul@proxml.be>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 09:46:22 +0200
Cc: nathan@webr3.org, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <314CFE3C-796A-4008-93CF-FB8C397CEDA0@proxml.be>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
I want to share my limited experiences.
I was very eager to learn and use OWL2.

My use case was the SKOS vocabulary.
SKOS has been formalized in OWL1-Full and OWL1-DL,
but since not all of the SKOS rules and constraints could be expressed in OWL1
I went to OWL2 for trying to formalize those additional semantics.

To my big surprise I discovered that OWL2 was of no use in doing this.
This is documented at http://bit.ly/aYodzu.

Frustrated, but no big deal, OWL2 must have been developed with other use cases in mind.

But my frustration became even bigger when moving to tools using the OWL(2)-API.
Although one claims that SKOS(1) is built into the OWL-API I do not succeed in getting the SKOS-XL vocabulary to work into these tools.
This is documented at: http://bit.ly/aO21h3
I tried to figure out what is going on, but no one (except Timothy Redmond) seems to care.

My conclusion:
I went to the store; they didn't deliver the goods and I did not encounter any customer oriented attitude.




Paul












On 18 Sep 2010, at 04:02, Sandro Hawke wrote:

> 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:
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Implementations
> 
> 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
> 
> 


Kind Regards,
Paul Hermans

-------------------------
ProXML bvba
XML and OWL/RDF services
(w) www.proxml.be
(b) experiences and opinions
(e) paul@proxml.be
(t)  +32 15 23 00 76
(m) +32 473 66 03 20

Narcisweg 17
3140 Keerbergen
Belgium
Received on Saturday, 18 September 2010 07:47:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:38 GMT