Re: FOAF OWL DL

On 15 Jun 2008, at 22:31, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

>
> I didn't suggest removing it. I suggested modularizing the ontology  
> so that the portion is OWL DL can easily be used without having to  
> hack anything. I suggested doing that in a way that the OWL Full  
> version remained the same, without making it more difficult to keep  
> two versions in sync, by using owl:imports to have the   Full  
> version include the portion that is OWL DL.
>
> In other situations, I have made suggestions, on the FOAF side of  
> things, for how to improve it, and on the OWL side of things on how  
> to make it possible for OWL2 to work with FOAF as is (or with minor  
> changes)
>
> What makes you think I want to harm FOAF?

I don't see Tim suggesting you wanted to harm foaf anywhere in what he  
wrote.

He is just suggesting that your reasoner do the selection between owl- 
full and owl-dl itself. That is how I do things with the Semantic  
Address Book at
https://sommer.dev.java.net/AddressBook.html

I don't even use owl-light, but some subset of that that I feel  
comfortable with. The rules I use currently are here:

http://tinyurl.com/5gl8dl

(I explain in more details here
http://blogs.sun.com/bblfish/entry/opening_sesame_with_networked_graphs
how I use this)

I will be adding more rules and so use more of owl as I go along.

Do as much reasoning as you have time for and as your inference engine  
is capable of. That is what we humans do all the time.

Henry


> -Alan
>
> On Jun 15, 2008, at 3:09 PM, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>>> It's OWL, but not OWL-DL.
>>> I would very much like there to be an OWL-DL version too, or at  
>>> least to factor it into two components - an OWL-DL portion, and a  
>>> set of further axioms that are imported by OWL full users.
>>
>> Why don't you hack your  OWL DL reasoner so it just ignores the  
>> fact that something is an InverseFunctionProperty when it is also a  
>> DatatypeProperty?  Just because the reasoner can't handle it, there  
>> is no reason to remove this valuable (essential) information from  
>> the ontology.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>