Re: OWL 2 -- Call for Implementations, new Drafts

> SH: "we expect to proceed to Proposed Recommendation and Recommendation."
> 
> 
> 
> What i like with the OWL 0, its high understanding of the subject: "Ontology 
> is a term borrowed from philosophy that refers to the science of describing 
> the kinds of entities in the world and how they are related."
> 
> And what i am missing with the OWL 2, the former definition, belittled as: 
> "Ontologies are formalized vocabularies of terms, often covering a specific 
> domain and shared by a community of users. They specify the definitions of 
> terms by describing their relationships with other terms in the ontology." 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/
> 
> Here are more inconsistencies. "OWL 2 is a knowledge representation 
> language, designed to formulate, exchange and reason with knowledge about a 
> domain of interest...these basic notions: Axioms: the basic statements that 
> an OWL ontology expresses; Entities: elements used to refer to real-world 
> objects; Expressions: combinations of entities to form complex descriptions 
> from basic ones".
> 
> Let's see what entities are here. "All atomic constituents of statements, be 
> they objects (John, Mary), categories (female) or relations (married) are 
> called entities. In OWL 2, we denote objects as individuals, categories as 
> classes and relations as properties."
> 
> Are all these entities, individuals, classes, properties, entities of 
> real-world objects?
> 
> In the primer there is a heading. "Advanced class relationships: (class) 
> intersection, union and complement", 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-owl2-primer-20090611/
> 
> If somebody proposing a modeling language "designed to represent rich and 
> complex knowledge about things, groups of things, and relations between 
> things", it would be wise to distinguish the formal set theory operations, 
> f: SxS to S, from the relationships proper, R = SxS, where S is an unordered 
> collection of distinct elements (members, objects, entities), and R is an 
> ordered collection of distinct elements. The samples of pairing 
> relationships between sets (classes) are "is equivalent of", "is a 
> complement of", "is a subset of", "has the same cardinality", etc., between 
> elements "is equal to", "is less than", etc. In algebra of relation, we do 
> operations (binary) on relations (binary).
> 
> I mentioned before with other standard candidate and have to repeat again: 
> "Strongly believe any standardization work involving ontology and semantic 
> technology standards needs a deep fundamental research tested with effective 
> knowledge and content systems and real world applications."
> 
> I'd add: an open public debate as far as "the W3C OWL 2 Web Ontology 
> Language (OWL) is a Semantic Web language...'', and as far as standards are 
> today may go as binding laws, both for humans and machines.

While the Working Group is interested in feedback, we do ask that people
send their comments to our public comments list if they want us to read
them, discuss them as a group, and reply.  (Also, please do NOT cross
post to that list, since it may cause other people to accidentally
submit comments if they reply to you.)  It helps if the comments suggest
specific, practical things we should do.

Of course, if you just meant this as a public discussion item, that's
fine.

(My apologies for cross posting, but I thought it was important to
clarify the comment procedure in all the places this message was
posted.)

     - Sandro

> Azamat Abdoullaev
> 
> http://www.semanticwww.com
> 
> http://www.eis.com.cy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
> To: <semantic-web@w3.org>; <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 8:14 PM
> Subject: OWL 2 -- Call for Implementations, new Drafts
> 
> 
> > OWL 2, a compatible extension to OWL 1, is now a W3C Candidate
> > Recommendation.  This means that if you are a developer of an OWL
> > system, it may be a good time to start adopting OWL 2.  The design is
> > not likely to change now, and this is the time to tell us about any
> > problems that come up during implementation.  Also, the primer, quick
> > reference, and new features document, (which are non-normative documents
> > intended to help people understand OWL) are now at Last Call, indicating
> > we think they are essentially done.
> >
> > A good place to start is the OWL 2 Document Overview:
> >
> >   http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/
> >
> > It gives a brief overview of OWL2, and offers a guide to each of the
> > other OWL 2 documents.  We'll be tracking what we know of
> > implementations here:
> >
> >   http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Implementations
> >
> >
> > Please send implementation reports and any other comments to
> > public-owl-comments@w3.org by 30 July.  Soon after that, we expect to
> > proceed to Proposed Recommendation and Recommendation.  Discussion
> > among OWL developers is welcome at public-owl-dev@w3.org.
> >
> >  -- Sandro Hawke, W3C Staff Contact, OWL Working Group
> >
> >

Received on Wednesday, 17 June 2009 00:06:35 UTC