RE: "Real OWL" on the Web

Just cross posting to LOD list for a moment..

Mark this doesn't quite answer you're question, but I was thinking about
how to publish (large) ontologies on the web in a linked data stylee. I

I short I was looking at publishing OWL ontologies with de-referencable
URIs, and using some of the ontology modularisation work to split the
OWL ontologies into manageable chunks...sort of creating the OWL
equivalent of a SPARQL describe.

Would be interested to know if anyone has published anything
similar...or indeed if I am talking complete nonsense :)

I think Clark & Parsia published something similar (so Kendall tells


Dr John Goodwin
Research Scientist, Research, Ordnance Survey 
C530, Romsey Road, SOUTHAMPTON, United Kingdom, SO16 4GU
Phone: +44 (0) 23 8030 5756| 
Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> [] On Behalf Of Mark Wallace
> Sent: 15 April 2009 14:06
> To: Dan Brickley
> Cc: Semantic Web at W3C
> Subject: Re: "Real OWL" on the Web
> Hi Dan,
> Good point about the OWL in FOAF.  Also, as I feared my 
> language may be inflammatory in a way I did not intend. 
> You mention that "how you compute with that data is a 
> pragmatic choice", and I agree.  I guess the heart of my 
> question is more about the processing than the language.  I 
> guess I am looking for examples of systems out there that are 
> using the OWL distributed around the web for significant 
> DL-reasoning.  Do such systems crawl or use seeAlso?  
> Examples using RDFS reasoning would also be similarly interesting.  
> Again, they may well be there and I am just unaware of them.  
> Thus the question.  :-)
>  -Mark
> Dan Brickley wrote:
> > On 15/4/09 14:41, Mark Wallace wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> In my experience (it may be too limited) I see a lot of 
> "real RDF" on 
> >> the web, especially in things like FOAF, and Dbpedia. But I am not 
> >> aware of much "real OWL" on the web, and by this I mean OWL-DL 
> >> ontologies and knowledge bases, embedded in web pages, and systems 
> >> that reason over such information. Now I know many folks 
> are hosting 
> >> ontologies at HTTP URLs. This is not what I am talking about. I am 
> >> thinking more of OWL-DL statements out there like FOAF is now, and 
> >> systems that crawl (?) and reason over the combined knowledge.
> >
> > A quick comment -
> > Whenever people do identity reasoning with FOAF data (eg. Sindice,
> > Garlik/Qdos) this is reasoning using properties like foaf:homepage, 
> > foaf:mbox etc whose semantics are documented using (real!) OWL.
> > Whether or not a general purpose OWL inference engine is used at 
> > runtime is pretty secondary. OWL is a data formats 
> standard, just as 
> > RDF is - how you compute with that data is a pragmatic choice. Any 
> > vocabulary or dataset (eg. DOAP, SIOC) that is mixed up 
> with FOAF in 
> > terms of linked classes and properties, is also partially 
> documented 
> > using OWL. So I guess I disagree with any attempt to contrast "real 
> > world" FOAF / RDF deployment with "non-real" OWL 
> deployment. Or with 
> > the idea that the only real OWL work is OWL-DL...
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > --
> >
> >

This email is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email which must not be copied, distributed or disclosed to any other person.

Unless stated otherwise, the contents of this email are personal to the writer and do not represent the official view of Ordnance Survey. Nor can any contract be formed on Ordnance Survey's behalf via email. We reserve the right to monitor emails and attachments without prior notice.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Ordnance Survey
Romsey Road
Southampton SO16 4GU
Tel: 08456 050505

Received on Wednesday, 15 April 2009 13:39:12 UTC