Re: OWL 2 -- Call for Implementations, new Drafts

SH: "we expect to proceed to Proposed Recommendation and Recommendation."



What i like with the OWL 0, its high understanding of the subject: "Ontology 
is a term borrowed from philosophy that refers to the science of describing 
the kinds of entities in the world and how they are related."

And what i am missing with the OWL 2, the former definition, belittled as: 
"Ontologies are formalized vocabularies of terms, often covering a specific 
domain and shared by a community of users. They specify the definitions of 
terms by describing their relationships with other terms in the ontology." 
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/

Here are more inconsistencies. "OWL 2 is a knowledge representation 
language, designed to formulate, exchange and reason with knowledge about a 
domain of interest...these basic notions: Axioms: the basic statements that 
an OWL ontology expresses; Entities: elements used to refer to real-world 
objects; Expressions: combinations of entities to form complex descriptions 
from basic ones".

Let's see what entities are here. "All atomic constituents of statements, be 
they objects (John, Mary), categories (female) or relations (married) are 
called entities. In OWL 2, we denote objects as individuals, categories as 
classes and relations as properties."

Are all these entities, individuals, classes, properties, entities of 
real-world objects?

In the primer there is a heading. "Advanced class relationships: (class) 
intersection, union and complement", 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-owl2-primer-20090611/

If somebody proposing a modeling language "designed to represent rich and 
complex knowledge about things, groups of things, and relations between 
things", it would be wise to distinguish the formal set theory operations, 
f: SxS to S, from the relationships proper, R = SxS, where S is an unordered 
collection of distinct elements (members, objects, entities), and R is an 
ordered collection of distinct elements. The samples of pairing 
relationships between sets (classes) are "is equivalent of", "is a 
complement of", "is a subset of", "has the same cardinality", etc., between 
elements "is equal to", "is less than", etc. In algebra of relation, we do 
operations (binary) on relations (binary).

I mentioned before with other standard candidate and have to repeat again: 
"Strongly believe any standardization work involving ontology and semantic 
technology standards needs a deep fundamental research tested with effective 
knowledge and content systems and real world applications."

I'd add: an open public debate as far as "the W3C OWL 2 Web Ontology 
Language (OWL) is a Semantic Web language...'', and as far as standards are 
today may go as binding laws, both for humans and machines.



Azamat Abdoullaev

http://www.semanticwww.com

http://www.eis.com.cy




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
To: <semantic-web@w3.org>; <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 8:14 PM
Subject: OWL 2 -- Call for Implementations, new Drafts


> OWL 2, a compatible extension to OWL 1, is now a W3C Candidate
> Recommendation.  This means that if you are a developer of an OWL
> system, it may be a good time to start adopting OWL 2.  The design is
> not likely to change now, and this is the time to tell us about any
> problems that come up during implementation.  Also, the primer, quick
> reference, and new features document, (which are non-normative documents
> intended to help people understand OWL) are now at Last Call, indicating
> we think they are essentially done.
>
> A good place to start is the OWL 2 Document Overview:
>
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/
>
> It gives a brief overview of OWL2, and offers a guide to each of the
> other OWL 2 documents.  We'll be tracking what we know of
> implementations here:
>
>   http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Implementations
>
>
> Please send implementation reports and any other comments to
> public-owl-comments@w3.org by 30 July.  Soon after that, we expect to
> proceed to Proposed Recommendation and Recommendation.  Discussion
> among OWL developers is welcome at public-owl-dev@w3.org.
>
>  -- Sandro Hawke, W3C Staff Contact, OWL Working Group
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 16 June 2009 22:26:17 UTC