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? > 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? Cheers, PeterReceived on Tuesday, 10 February 2009 05:22:32 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:10 UTC