- 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