Re: OWL and LOD

On 12 May 2009, at 10:49, John Goodwin wrote:
> Hi,
> I was just curious how many OWL sceptics we have in the LOD  
> community? Rightly or wrongly I get the impression there are a few?
OWL hasn't historically been very practical over large datasets, but I  
have high hopes for some of the new dialects in OWL2.
> I've been integrating various LOD resource for a small demo at work  
> and have come to the realisation than a bit of relatively simple OWL  
> goes a long way in making the integration process more complete. Not  
> that is was a great surprise really, but you soon realise that  
> owl:sameAs only gets you so far. IMHO we really need to get OWL into  
> the LOD mix for linking vocabularies/ontologies as well as data at  
> the instance level. RDFS is not enough.
There are some issues around here, my understanding is that owl:sameAs  
is used a bit liberally in the LOD world as it is. In principle it  
seems like a good idea though.

> Other simple examples of needing OWL with LOD are genealogy. I've  
> started to convert my family tree into RDF, e.g.:
> A bit of OWL e.g.:
> Parent = foaf:Person and isParentOf some foaf:Person
> isParentOf o isBrotherOf -> isUncleOf
> Uncle = foaf:Person and isUncleOf some foaf:Person
> Would save me writing long SPARQL queries for find instances of  
> Parent, Uncle etc.
Sure, seems like a good idea, that can be better done in the local  
processor I would have thought though, rather than at the LOD level?

- Steve

Steve Harris
Garlik Limited, 2 Sheen Road, Richmond, TW9 1AE, UK
+44(0)20 8973 2465
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10  

Received on Tuesday, 12 May 2009 10:14:57 UTC