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


From: John Goodwin <John.Goodwin@ordnancesurvey.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 11:22:23 +0100
Message-ID: <D72AF46149B1D74FBC8CD7090ED2446BF5CF7F@EMAIL.ordsvy.gov.uk>
To: "Steve Harris" <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Cc: <public-lod@w3.org>, <semantic-web@w3.org>

> 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.

Yes - hopefully OWL2RL and/or OWL2QL will help here. 

> > 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.

Owl:sameAs is used very liberally - maybe used of owl:disjoint will spot
a few errors. But could it be that owl:sameAs is used liberally because
the classes are not fully defined enough to give people enough
information to make the right links?

> > Other simple examples of needing OWL with LOD are genealogy. I've 
> > started to convert my family tree into RDF, e.g.:
> >
> > http://www.johngoodwin.me.uk/family/I0265
> > http://www.johngoodwin.me.uk/family/I0243
> >
> > 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?

Agreed - at least at first!


This email is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email which must not be copied, distributed or disclosed to any other person.

Unless stated otherwise, the contents of this email are personal to the writer and do not represent the official view of Ordnance Survey. Nor can any contract be formed on Ordnance Survey's behalf via email. We reserve the right to monitor emails and attachments without prior notice.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Ordnance Survey
Romsey Road
Southampton SO16 4GU
Tel: 08456 050505

Received on Tuesday, 12 May 2009 10:23:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:12 UTC