- From: Conrad Bock <conrad.bock@nist.gov>
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:59:46 -0500
- To: "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Peter, > > Thanks, these are not comments on the metamodel, which is what > > we're concerned with, but I'll forward them to OMG for discussion > > there (BTW, the list is odm-ftf@omg.org, which you can also send > > mail to also). > How so? Are those sections not the OMG metamodels for RDF and OWL? Yes, but the metamodels are in the figures, not the text you commented on. > If the metamodels are based on fundamental misunderstandings of RDF > and OWL and how they interact is that not a problem? The question is whether any errors in the text are also in the metamodel. > > > I have no idea what possible use the RDF and OWL > > > metamodels could be > > > put to. > > Boris put it very well in > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Oct/0085.html > > where he says it is very useful to have a data storage > > specification for > > the language (his message would make quite a nice ad for OMG, > > actually!). It is important that such a storage specification be > > generally agreed if the stored ontologies are to be > > widely accessible. > > It isn't good for W3C and OMG to adopt different data storage > > specifications for OWL. > I do agree that having a specification of how OWL ontologies could > be stored is a good idea. However, in my opinion the OMG metamodel > for OWL are not suitable for this use. Would be good to have comments on the metamodel (I see them in a later message, thanks). > The structural specification for OWL in SS&FS is much better, at > least for OWL 1.1. I would be easy to turn it into a structural > specification for OWL DL that I think would be much better than the > OMG one. > I also think that using the OMG metamodel for RDF would be > detrimental to the use of RDF. Again, you'd need to justify that with comments on the metamodels. Conrad
Received on Friday, 30 November 2007 17:00:15 UTC