- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 19:51:05 -0500
- To: William Bug <William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu>
- Cc: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
- Message-Id: <p06230937c182b6b9717c@[10.0.0.233]>
Bill - I think you see the key point - these things are not mutually exclusive in any way - high end ontology use needs some of the OWL 1.1 functionality, but wider adoption is likely to come in the data integration space, where a lot can be done with the simpler "OWL Mini" (or OWL Fast, or OWL Prime, or OWLET, or whatever it might end up being called). btw, the "?" marks in the graph didn't mean things were being left out, it meant we weren't sure if including them would cause scaling problems - I expect we will keep data and object type properties because a lot of current tools support that distinction (for example tools which turn OWL classes into web forms generally have a different handling of each of these) Work on this continues apace JH p.s. There are some resource contention issues which I think are relatively easily worked out, but there's also some difference in the philosophy between the current OWL 1.1 people and the people I mention working on the simpler OWL - but that's mostly because we've been working in different spaces. At 7:31 PM -0500 11/16/06, William Bug wrote: Many thanks, Jim. I saw posts by you and others - as well as links to more detailed - and very recent - discussions. These are all very helpful. I was particularly interested in the proposal you, Ora Lassilla, and others have worked on to "absorb" much of the OWL Lite constructs into RDF++ (I believe that is the name being used - two proposals - the summary of which you give here - <http://www.nabble.com/perspectives-on-OWL-v.next-and-RDF-tf2624829.html>http://www.nabble.com/perspectives-on-OWL-v.next-and-RDF-tf2624829.html) - minus many of the class axioms and Datatype Properties, but including owl:disjointWith. I recall reading some on this in the past, but given these issues related to OWL 1.1, those proposals take on a whole new semantic value now - pun[ning] intended. ;-) I also can definitely see the sense in the argument when trying to determine where to go next, there is need to achieve a balance between simplicity to catalyze wider adoption and the need to provide new functionality to a subset of users. I think its actually a four way balance: simplicity - robustness - performance/scalability - expressivity These characteristics are not necessarily exclusive of - or the inverse of - one another, though usually performance scales with the inverse of expressivity, at least when comparing across very large differences in expressivity. The position you choose to target in this space really depends on what you are trying to achieve, obviously. Cheers, Bill On Nov 16, 2006, at 3:01 PM, Jim Hendler wrote: actually, we're trying to move the discussion to <mailto:public-owl-dev@w3.org>public-owl-dev@w3.org there's a thread there that expresses some of my concerns about moving away from the OWL syntax - given that the primary tools out there right now still assume the OWL is integrated with the RDF graph... At 2:52 PM -0500 11/16/06, William Bug wrote: As I expected, the experts are listening. :-) Many thanks, Holger. That's extremely important to know. I will dig into the thread for more detail. One main concern would be whether that was just a token gesture to stay compatible for now, as opposed to a commitment to remain compatible, until or unless an effective alternative is provided to representing very large knowledgebases in RDF. I think more than anything I was a bit overwhelmed by the collective picture given by those half-dozen or so presentations from last week's meeting. The meeting seemed "fresh" enough, so that it could be expected to be reflective of the status quo. I assume there was much heated discussion during the meeting, that would have filled out such detail - or such has been carried out on the owl-dev list. I suppose it's also a good idea to dig into the OWL Extensions list hosted by Jim Hendler's lab: <http://lists.mindswap.org/mailman/listinfo/owl>http://lists.mindswap.org/mailman/listinfo/owl Cheers, Bill On Nov 16, 2006, at 2:33 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: However, I'd point out, in the last document, where they describe a mapping of OWL 1.1 to RDF, they make the following caveat: Not every OWL 1.1 ontology can be serialized in RDF. In particular, ontologies using the following features of OWL 1.1 cannot be serialized: 1. punning and 2. annotations on axioms. Please see a recent thread on the public-owl-dev mailing list about this: <http://www.nabble.com/Limitations-of-OWL-1.1-to-RDF-mapping-tf2639224.html>http://www.nabble.com/Limitations-of-OWL-1.1-to-RDF-mapping-tf2639224.html Bijan states: "The RDF mapping has lagged behind the others, but the plan is to extend the mapping to cover these cases." Holger TopQuadrant, Inc. <http://www.topbraidcomposer.com>http://www.topbraidcomposer.com <http://composing-the-semantic-web.blogspot.com>http://composing-the-semantic-web.blogspot.com/ Bill Bug Senior Research Analyst/Ontological Engineer Laboratory for Bioimaging & Anatomical Informatics www.neuroterrain.org Department of Neurobiology & Anatomy Drexel University College of Medicine 2900 Queen Lane Philadelphia, PA 19129 215 991 8430 (ph) 610 457 0443 (mobile) 215 843 9367 (fax) Please Note: I now have a new email - <mailto:William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu>William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu -- Prof James Hendler <mailto:hendler@cs.umd.edu>hendler@cs.umd.edu Dept of Computer Science <http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler>http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler AV Williams Bldg 301-405-2696 (work) Univ of Maryland 301-405-6707 (Fax) College Park, MD 20853 USA Bill Bug Senior Research Analyst/Ontological Engineer Laboratory for Bioimaging & Anatomical Informatics www.neuroterrain.org Department of Neurobiology & Anatomy Drexel University College of Medicine 2900 Queen Lane Philadelphia, PA 19129 215 991 8430 (ph) 610 457 0443 (mobile) 215 843 9367 (fax) Please Note: I now have a new email - <mailto:William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu>William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu -- Prof James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu Dept of Computer Science http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler AV Williams Bldg 301-405-2696 (work) Univ of Maryland 301-405-6707 (Fax) College Park, MD 20853 USA
Received on Friday, 17 November 2006 00:58:42 UTC