W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Extending RDFS, property-classes

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:16:49 -0500
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0902092116y1ffff68agbe82c27bb39ba02a@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:09 AM, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/2/10 Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>:
>> Hello Richard,
>> I find your remark very odd, and more demonstrative of a lack of
>> experience than an accurate perception of the state or vision of the
>> Semantic Web. Certainly the lack of customers using OWL becomes a
>> self-fulfilling prophecy when such a point of view is held.
>> OWL is widely deployed in the area I work on the Semantic Web for
>> science, with our own Neurocommons being a 400M triple store expressed
>> in OWL and many other projects using OWL. Within biomedicine OWL is
>> commonly used, with the OBO ontologies, the NCI thesaurus all
>> available in OWL and SNOMED on the way. It would make no sense for any
>> of these projects to use RDF or even RDFS. For one thing there is no
>> way for anything to be incorrect (from a logical point of view) in
>> RDFS, and you might be aware of a certain penchant scientists have for
>> theories that can be refuted.
> I was under the impression there was no way in OWL to say that
> something was possibly incorrect? Could you give an example so I can
> get my head around what you said more clearly?

What I mean is that it is possible to detect an inconsistency in the
set of axioms expressed as OWL. A very simple example is to say that
some individual is both a instance of a class and its complement.
Another thing that can be detected is when there is a cardinality that
is violated. We used inverse functional properties and cardinality
constraints to find mistakes in accession number cross references in
some work we called "debugging the bug"

There are only trivial inconsistencies detectable in RDFS, such as
malformed literals.

>> Even within RDF usage, there are bits of OWL vocabulary that are quite
>> popular and are used extensively, for example (for better or worse)
>> owl:sameAs and owl:inverseFunctionalProperty
> Are people using these properties in applications without following
> and/or understanding the complete OWL specification?

Some are, some not.


> Cheers,
> Peter
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2009 05:17:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:10 UTC