Re: OWL 2 is now a W3C Proposed Recommendation

On 12 Oct 2009, at 07:09, Ivan Herman wrote:

> Bene,
>
> OWL 2 reuses the same URI used by OWL 1. As OWL 2 is an extension to  
> OWL
> 1, this makes sense.

Please note that the file you were using (owl.owl) is in the process  
of being updated. Once that is complete and published you should be  
able to load it in the editor of your choice and have the same  
experience you did with the OWL 1 owl.owl file.

There are some people (myself included) who think this is not a good  
way to learn or explore OWL (1 or 2). There was quite a debate about  
it between me (anti) and Holger Knublauch (pro) recently which you  
might find interesting:
	<http://www.w3.org/mid/B6D22E33-5332-4CF3-8582-F6A033BE4C7B@topquadrant.com 
 >

Of course the emphasis in that debate is somewhat different. I  
personally think that owl.owl is *worse* from a pedegogical  
perspective (though, of course, people differ and we have to consider  
what outcomes we're interested in and what other material we're using,  
etc.)

OWL 2 has a lot of excellent, IMHO, learning material including the  
basic language specification itself. For an overview, the Quick  
Reference Guide is quite reasonable.

> I cannot comment on the plans of the different editors regarding the
> additional OWL 2 features although, AFAIK, Protege does cover part of
> OWL 2 already.

Swoop is moribund and will not, unless someone takes up the code (its  
open source), be updated. Frankly, I wouldn't recommend taking up the  
code as it's based on an older version of the OWL API and is generally  
messy. It's not that hard to skin Protege4 to a more Swoopy interface  
(it's gotten reasonably close) and focus on adding the remaining  
missing features.

Protege4 supports, afaik, all of OWL 2 (in a development release).

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Monday, 12 October 2009 17:50:31 UTC