W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > February 2003

Re: DAML -> OWL Converter BROKEN

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 17:22:10 -0500
Message-Id: <p05200f03ba7b04fe3287@[]>
To: "Raphael Volz" <volz@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>, "Webont" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

At 16:30 +0000 2/20/03, Raphael Volz wrote:
>Hi -
>it is broken since there
>is no such thing as an owl:Property, hence it
>does NOT generate any valid OWL ontologies.
>In concluseion we do NOT have
>"  we have well over 100 ontologies that cleanly map from DAML to OWL,
>so we have lots of examples  (currently all the ontologies in the "
>as Jim claims.

The OwlConverter has been fixed to generate rdf:Property rather than 
owl:Property.  Interestingly, since we once had owl:Property in some 
of the docs, the validator we were using didn't catch this error, 
suspect there are others as well. We will run a more complete set of 
tests when the Last Call documents  are done

>Mit freundlichen Gru?en,
>Best regards,
>Raphael Volz
>Institut AIFB, Universitat Karlsruhe
>WIM, FZI Karlsruhe
>Fax: +49-1212-5-470-17-365
>-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
>Von: www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
>[mailto:www-webont-wg-request@w3.org]Im Auftrag von Jim Hendler
>Gesendet: Donnerstag, 20. Februar 2003 14:55
>An: Ian Horrocks; Dan Connolly
>Cc: Peter F. Patel-Schneider; Guus Schreiber; www-webont-wg@w3.org
>Betreff: Re: Imports issue
>>As far as implementation in general is concerned, as I have mentioned
>>before, you can't expect implementors to put too much effort in while
>>the language specification still appears to be unstable!
>let me only address this issue -- it seems there is some
>misunderstanding in the WG (not necessarily you Ian, I'm just using
>this as an excuse for something I've been meaning to send for a
>Our hope is to move from Last Call directly to Proposed
>Recommendation (i.e. skipping the Candidate Recommendation phase).
>To do this, we have to show  TWO EXISTING IMPLEMENTATIONS of every
>feature in the language.  Proving something implementable is not
>enough.   The mail from Sean and Jeremy, for example, shows two
>implementations of Imports, and thus that may be sufficient.  We also
>need same for everything else in our design.  Our language won't be
>stable, however, until after LC.  As a result, if we don't want to
>have to have a long CR period, we NEED people to start implementing
>NOW (despite the instability) and then to tune as the language
>finishes (at this point we are not making major changes likely to
>require significant implementation changes)
>I've started working on our implementation report, and to move out of
>LC I think we need the following:
>   i. Another independent implementation of Owl Lite.  The Univ of
>Maryland will do one, but we need another.  (Note: I do not believe
>it counts to say that all DL implementations also implement Lite,
>because that doesn't help us validate the decision to have Lite as a
>separate sublanguage).
>   ii. Two separate DL implementations that have actually been shown to
>pass all, or at least most, of our DL tests (Euler will be needed in
>the Full section).  While I don't doubt there are a number of systems
>around that COULD pass our tests, someone needs to actually show they
>work.  I'm hoping the "Manchester connection" (I.e. University and/or
>Network Infernece) will do one - someone needs to volunteer to do
>another (this could be as simple as writing a tool to cooerce our
>test cases into Racer or other such system)
>   iii. As far as I can tell, none of our documents have been changed
>to address the issue of what is expected in datatypes.  This means
>that as it currently stands, we need to produce two sound and
>complete implementations that include all the possible rules for all
>the xsd: datatypes and their combination.  My hope is we'll fix this
>by removing the requirement for sound and complete datatype reasoning
>and put in something rational (OIL is a good model), but if not, we
>will need these two implementations
>   iv. I think we will need a second participant to do a Owl type
>checker like Sean is doing -- this is because we make a big deal
>about this in the conformance part of Test.  (If we were to water our
>wording down a bit, we might be able to get away with one, so I'm not
>too worried  about this one)
>Here's the good news
>   we have well over 100 ontologies that cleanly map from DAML to OWL,
>so we have lots of examples  (currently all the ontologies in the
>DAML library which can validate against DAML can be mapped to Owl
>using the UM converter)
>   we have a number of DAML tools that are being adopted for OWL
>   we have several implementations of Full being done (I consider Euler
>one of these, cwm another, and we have a student looking at mapping
>Full to a FOL or HOL prover)
>   we have a couple of validators coming along - Mike's and Sean'si
>   we have at least two parsers (Jena as is, and a new UMd one) which
>can create correct triples for OWL (Jeremy, I think this is true
>based on my understanding of what is in Jena - I know you'll do more
>eventually to make it more OWL aware, but I think it already counts
>as a parser - if I'm wrong, please help me out)
>   Within the next week or so we will have at least one web site that
>is entirely powered by RDF/OWL tools - it will demonstrate the
>interoperability of a number of the pieces above.
>   So - we either need to figure out that we can do all the things in
>the "to be done" section by end of LC period, or we need to have a
>Candidate Recommendation period with a call for implementations.
>Given the fact that the number of working things (the good news)
>outweighs the still needed part, I'm still hoping we can skip CR.
>Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
>Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
>Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
>Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)

Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
Received on Thursday, 20 February 2003 17:22:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:51 UTC