W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > September 2002

Re: OWL working drafts - feedback sought

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 23:29:09 -0400
Message-ID: <004201c2548c$65daade0$af363418@ne.mediaone.net>
To: "Christopher Welty" <welty@us.ibm.com>, "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3c.org>


>
> We must address this  issue at some point, and I believe feedback on
> it was important.  By asking for feedback on X I am in no way
> prejudging X, but inviting both X and NOT(X) feedback.
>
>

I think it is a perfectly reasonable thing to discuss.

I also would be terribly disappointed if we don't do a FULL OWL, indeed, I
(and others) would very probably just use DAML+OIL as a better OWL.

I am not at all convinced that OWL-Lite would serve the needs of the medical
community, which has a large use of DL e.g. SNOMED. I think that if OWL
can't capture SNOMED etc. then it will fail this community in the long term,
and well, thus my interest in this project will plummet.. I think that
OWL-Full would likely capture SNOMED ... perhaps Ian who has alot of
experience in medical ontologies can better answer this. In any case for my
personal needs, any subset of OWL that can capture SNOMED (for example, not
neccessarily exactly SNOMED, but at least something alot like it) would be
fine by me ... this is my own line in the sand ... so short of some real
evidence that OWL-Lite is able to capture, again for example, SNOMED, I
strongly oppose stopping there.

More generally, I fear that if we don't capture the needs of the DL
community then we will have failed to create a true Web Ontology
(interchange) language, where different tools can create ontologies, share
and manipulate them. That said, I don't have a problem with folks that only
need a subset of OWL to define such a subset and talk amongst themselves --
which is what I had thought the purpose of OWL-Lite was, no?

Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2002 23:46:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:52 GMT