Re: Minutes 11-16-06 HCLS teleconference (small correction)

Bill,

On Nov 17, 2006, at 10:53 AM, William Bug wrote:

> I would add - as Holger Knublauch and Jim Hendler both pointed out,  
> reading through some of the threads on that list can help to  
> alleviate the misgivings one might have regarding whether there has  
> been sufficient detailed debate surrounding this issue that has  
> taken the needs of all OWL users into consideration.  I should have  
> gone there first, before mentioning it directly in the TCon.

This is an important discussion and your raising it on the telecon  
and on the list is helping to bring clarity to all of us.  Thank you  
for taking the time to dig through the materials, and putting in the  
effort to formulate and raise the questions which are get the issues  
and answers brought to the surface for all of us to see.

Joanne
>
> As I mentioned in my reply to Jim Hendler, I think I was just taken  
> aback by the convincing, collective weight of the arguments  
> presented by the several papers given by various U. Manchester  
> groups at the OWL ED 2006 meeting last week against FULL RDF  
> compatibility for some of the OWL 1.1 (and SHOIQ DL) requirements.
>
> The thought ProtegeOWL v4 - which sounds like a major step ahead  
> from what Joanne Luciano has said and what they describe in the  
> paper on OWL 1.1 support in ProtegeOWL & FaCT++ given at the  
> meeting - will quickly become a tool of choice for those developing  
> OWL ontologies - is a bit worrisome too, as it does not use RDF  
> serialization.  Having said that, after reading some more on the  
> lists, it sounds more likely ProtegeOWL v4 will not use RDF as its  
> DEFAULT serialization for very compelling reasons presented in that  
> paper; however, there will likely be an "RDF export" capability,  
> using the RDF mapping that several folks are working on.  Whether  
> it will be the typical RDF/XML you get now from ProtegeOWL v3.2 or  
> some other RDF serialization scheme, is likely still open to  
> debate.  The open source arena in which Protege and ProtegeOWL  
> dwells will likely bring forth whatever functionality the community  
> decides they require, so long as the underlying mathematical  
> formalism can support it.
>
> I would also add my sense is the OWL 1.1 developers have  
> collectively worked very diligently to accrue feedback from the  
> community (general experience with OWL in many scenarios and  
> related requests for new features) and to discuss these pending  
> changes since many were first announced at last year's OWL ED  
> 2005.  What they presented at the OWL ED 2006 meeting last week  
> appears to be the summary outcome of that effort.
>
> As Ivan and others have made clear in the last few months, despite  
> much informal discussion that has already transpired, OWL 1.1 has  
> not yet been officially discussed by the relevant W3C working  
> groups, so the debate is likely to continue for a while.
>
> At least that's that's the view I get as an interested user/ 
> bystander.  ;-)
>
> Cheers,
> Bill
>
> On Nov 17, 2006, at 8:04 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
>
>>> will be ample possibility to have discussions on the charter.  
>>> Please not
>>> the public-owl-dev@w3.org is where, most probably, these discussions
>>> will take place. YOUR VOICE SHOULD BE HEARD THERE.
>
> 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 - William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu
>
>
>
>

Joanne Luciano, PhD
Predictive Medicine, Inc.
45 Orchard Street
Belmont MA 02478-3008
Email: jluciano@predmed.com