Re: OWL vs. RDF : Face-to-face meeting minutes

Excellent suggestion, Duncan.

This is really a "must read" for anyone constructing OWL-based  
ontologies - or trying to decide whether they should proceed from RDF  
to OWL and which OWL "dialect" to commit to.  It provides an  
excellent, accessible overview to the underlying DLs with ample  
pointers to more formal detail on specific issues.  It is also an  
excellent backgrounder on issues such as expressivity, decidability,  
and computational load in general and the pros/cons of OWLs  
particular strategy for addressing these issues - with a bias toward  
the pros :-).

I've relied on it when trying to sort out these very issues.  Every  
time I go back to this article, I get a slightly tighter hold on the  
relevant computational issues.  I expect to continue to absorb more  
from this paper in the coming months.

I'd also suggest perusing this follow-up:
	The Even More Irresistible SROIQ. (http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/% 
7Esattler/publications/sroiq-tr.pdf)

Obviously, it's important to consult the current OWL v1.1 proposed  
spec, too:
	http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/overview.html
	http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/syntax.html
	http://owl1-1.cs.manchester.ac.uk/Semantics.html

Given the nature of the biological world we are trying to formally  
represent and compute upon, I'd also suggest reviewing the other  
proposed extensions and design patters to supplement OWL 1.0:

	partonomy:
		http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/SimplePartWhole/index.html
	time:
		http://www.isi.edu/~pan/SWBP/time-ontology-note/time-ontology- 
note.html

This side issue being discussed related to the OBO --> OBO-XML --  
(XSLT) --> OWL conversion under discussion is also a related and very  
important one.  There are several biomedical ontologies currently  
only available in OBO format that I'd really like to be able to  
import into our BIRNLex OWL file, but I'm wary of loss of semantic  
info and the requirement for thorough vetting of the results.  Part  
of the issue relates to whether what has been expressed in OBO in any  
given ontology really provides all the info required to support an  
algorithmic conversion into an optimal OWL representation.  There's  
also the issue of whether any algorithm could make optimal use of  
OWL's expressivity when translating an OBO ontology.

I feel like once I've absorbed all there is to harvest from these  
resources, I'll know at least 75% of what I'll need to know to cover  
me for at least a few more years out.  :-)

I'm sorry I missed this discussion at the F2F.  I'll definitely go  
through the minutes.

Cheers,
Bill


On Oct 12, 2006, at 4:46 AM, Duncan Hull wrote:

>
> Kerstin
>
> Kerstin.L.Forsberg@astrazeneca.com wrote:
>> Would be great to have some short statements from you as guidance  
>> on this topic in discussion with colleagues here at AstraZeneca.
>>
> This paper should help inform the discussion
>
> From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: the making of a Web Ontology Language
> Ian Horrocks, Peter F. Patel-Schneider and Frank van Harmelen
> http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2003.07.001
> also available at
> http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/Publications/download/2003/ 
> HoPH03a.pdf
>
> It contains a brief description in section 2 on some of the  
> differences between OWL and RDF which you might find useful.
>
> Duncan
>
> -- 
> Duncan Hull
> http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~hulld/
> Phone: +44 (0) 161 275 0677
>
>
>

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