- From: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:46:11 +0100
- To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
>>>>> "Alan" == Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> writes: Alan> Well it would be educational to get your view on what you can Alan> you do with owl without a reasoner that's not easier to do Alan> without owl? You can do lots of things with OWL without a reasoner. The Gene Ontology is representable in OWL, for example, and uses a simple enough expressivity that you could do without a reasoner easily enough. Of course, you need to use some kind of "reasoning" engine, but something which understands transitive closure is enough. Whether it's "easier" to do without OWL depends on what the alternatives are. You could also represent GO style semantics in RDF (although, I think, the existential nature of part_of would not be explicit), or indeed anything else capable of representing a graph. Alan> And how are you to know when you do need the reasoner and when Alan> you don't? When you use enough of the expressivity of OWL, where "enough" is relatively undefined. Phil
Received on Thursday, 26 October 2006 10:46:25 UTC