Re: Extending RDFS, property-classes

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,

Peter