- From: William Bug <William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu>
- Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:35:10 -0400
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Matthias Samwald <samwald@gmx.at>, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
- Message-Id: <C5A533EE-6089-4D28-99B8-FC35C528F803@DrexelMed.edu>
Many thanks for this clarification, Ivan. Like Matthias, I was a bit confused regarding the status of this proposal, as I went though the current OWL 1.1 proposal a little while back. As David stated at the outset, there are several issues we'll need resolved, several of which are clearly taken on directly by the current OWL 1.1 proposal. Cheers, Bill On Sep 21, 2006, at 7:37 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: > Matthias, > > Matthias Samwald wrote: >> Yes, qualified cardinality restrictions would really be very useful! >> >> I had a look at the documentation of the OWL 1.1 proposal, and I >> have to say that the "1.1" is a bit misleading, since it will not >> be a W3C standard. I guess that this is an attempt to push the W3C >> and software developers to adopt the proposal, but it could also >> lead to puzzling conflicts in versioning (as has been the case >> with RSS [1], for instance). >> > > as a mathematician by training let me change your sentence from > > "will not be a W3C standard" > > to > > "will not *yet* be a W3C standard" > > :-) > > True, the current OWL 1.1 work is happening on a forum that is > formally > independent from W3C, but that had only administrative reasons at the > time. It is not yet decided how the work would then continue, whether > the authors would, eventually, submit that to W3C for a further > standardization, etc. All that is still in the open. But OWL 1.1 is > very > much on the radar screen... > > Feedbacks like David's (who originally started this thread) are very > important. Thank you for it. > > Ivan > >> It would also be interesting to know how current systems (ontology >> editors, validators etc.) would handle OWL 1.1. Would they >> silently ignore the new statements added by 1.1, or would we have >> to deal with warnings/errors etc.? >> >> kind regards, >> Matthias Samwald >> >> >> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS_(file_format)#History >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 01:25:24 -0400, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: >> >>> Hello David, >>> >>> >>> I think you are referring to the lack of qualified cardinality >>> restrictions (http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/QCR/) >>> >>> The proposed OWL 1.1 includes them and should shortly (in the next >>> few months) be supported by the major OWL reasoners, including >>> Pellet, and FaCT++ (and hence Protege). >>> >>> OWL 1.1 is described at http://owl1_1.cs.manchester.ac.uk/. In the >>> overview search for SROIQ. >>> >>> There is an OWL workshop coming up: http://owl-workshop.man.ac.uk/ >>> OWLWorkshop06.html Perhaps you should consider attending. >>> >>> Let me know if I've misunderstood. >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Alan >> >> >> >> >> > > -- > > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead > URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html > FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf 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 This email and any accompanying attachments are confidential. This information is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any review, disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this email communication by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please notify us immediately by returning this message to the sender and delete all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.
Received on Thursday, 21 September 2006 19:47:41 UTC