W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > May 2007

Re: OWLED 2007 is nigh

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 14:29:16 +0100
Message-ID: <465D7C2C.3080402@danbri.org>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: public-semweb-lifesci hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>

Bijan Parsia wrote:
> See the eponymous post:
>     http://clarkparsia.com/weblog/2007/05/28/owled-2007-is-nigh/
> I know several of you will be attending...I'm looking forward to meeting 
> y'all.
> As the blog post above says, I'm interested in any suggestions from 
> *anyone* (attendee or not) for features or topics they would like raised 
> during the "standardization" sessions. There are *90* people registered 
> thus far, so it's a good opportunity to get your issue or pet peeve 
> vetted by a diverse and OWL-committed audience.

I'd be very interested to hear what owners of publically-used OWL 
namespaces hope for from the W3C rules / RIF work, eg. whether 
publishing some kind of RIF data via their namespace documents is 
something the OWL community care about. And in general, pet-peeve-wise 
... to get a sense of issues around integration across W3C standards 
(SPARQL/RIF/OWL/SKOS/GRDDL/RDFa/etc) as they're seen from an OWL 

I'd also like to hear whether there are any emerging conventions for 
ontologies that have an OWL-Full form to also publish an OWL-DL version 
(eg. content negotiation? linked from namespace, etc). I know for eg 
that DL-ized versions of Dublin Core and FOAF are floating around, there 
are probably others too. What can be done to improve that situation, 
beyond migrating everything to pure DL?

Sounds like a good event, sorry I can't be there...


Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2007 13:29:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:20:27 UTC