Re: Are there any plans to develop an OWL version of QUDT?

On 5/8/14 3:35 AM, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org wrote:
> Let's put it short:
>
> If a vocabulary is outside OWL DL just because the model is sloppy or the modeler did not understand the constraints of OWL DL, it is typically desirable to aim at staying in OWL DL. The advantage is that the vocabulary can be used in OWL DL environments without turning an otherwise OWL DL knowledge-base into OWL Full just by adding the vocabulary. That was, btw, the motivation to make extra effort for keeping GoodRelations in OWL DL - so that people who use it in more controlled settings (e.g. internal product data management) can use an OWL DL environment.
>
> If, however, OWL DL constraints make modeling the domain cumbersome or require the removal of options, then being in OWL Full is IMO better than crippling the vocabulary to OWL DL.
>
> For instance, the frequent pattern in schema.org to allow both typed entities and text values for certain properties is IMO a feature, but can be handled in OWL DL only by cumbersome solutions. One could use a owl:DatatypeProperty with the range of the union of xsd:anyURI and xsd:String (from the top of my head I think that even that is outside of OWL DL, but I am not sure).
>
> Or take sub-properties of owl:DatatypeProperties. I may be wrong here again, but afaik this has been removed from OWL 2 DL, while it was in OWL 1 DL and is a heavily used pattern in GoodRelations. For instance, you may want to make foo:hasXYZ code a subproperty of foo:hasCode so that you can easily abstract from the exact code type in queries.
>
> The datatype xsd:time is no longer in OWL 2 DL, and while I understand the logical argument for removing it, it is a feature we use heavily for modeling opening hours.
>
> I personally think that the step from OWL 1 to OWL 2 was not done well, since weakening an already weak user base by introducing constraints that popular adopters cannot meet is problematic.
>
> Ontologies are interfaces between human minds, human minds and computer systems, and computer systems and computer systems. When making design choices, we have to look at existing data structures, cognitive skills of humans, and computational characteristics of the representation all at the same time.
>
> OWL 2 DL is better for computers. It is arguably not better for Web ontologies and the Semantic Web ecosystem.
>
> Martin

+1

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen