W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > May 2011

Re: Publications about OWL (1 or 2) Full

From: Michael F Uschold <uschold@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 11:49:12 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=M7buWTXH0aRNDOXBF2W1dSRVz2w@mail.gmail.com>
To: antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr
Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
These are good questions. You are right, the current attitude and practice
is avoid OWL Full at all costs.  Unfortunately, this ignores the costs of
NOT using OWL Full -- basically it means having to do a lot of painful
workarounds that make the ontology harder to understand which undermines one
of the key goals of ontology: to make meaning clear!

If you want to be able to have meta classes, and use classes as values for
properties and other OWL Full goodies, you have to use a more powerful
reasoner. Any FOL prover would do, I should think, but I am no expert.

I have no hard evidence, but I feel certain that there are plenty of cases
when the penalties of OWL Full are on balance small enough compared to the
gains of expressive convenience and clarity of OWL Full.

I would love to see someone look into this. I would love it if someone tried
to create a reasoner that handled OWL Full as efficiently as possible.

Notice how many responses you got to this message in the past few weeks?
That may reflect how much people in the community care about OWL Full!

Michael

Michael

On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 1:05 AM, Antoine Zimmermann <
antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
>
> I'm looking for scientific publications related to OWL Full. I'm interested
> in the following kind of work:
>  - reasoning with OWL Full;
>  - modelling ontologies in OWL Full;
>  - properties of OWL Full, or relationships between OWL Full and other
> formalisms.
>
> I've found some papers about modelling existing ontologies in OWL (for
> instance, modelling a UML spec or a frame-based ontology in OWL) which
> happen to fall into OWL Full, but nothing about modelling OWL Full
> ontologies by design. I found very little about reasoning in OWL Full (with
> the notable exception of [1], which also relates OWL reasoning to OOP).
> But the vast majority of papers mentioning OWL Full present it as the
> language that must be avoided at all cost (usually saying "if we do that, we
> are in OWL Full" implying "if we do that, we're screwed!").
>
> Thanks in advance for your pointers.
>
>
> [1] Seiji Koide and Hideaki Takeda. OWL-Full Reasoning from an Object
> Oriented Perspective. In R. Mizoguchi, Z. Shi, and F. Giunchiglia (Eds.):
> ASWC 2006, LNCS 4185, pp. 263–277, 2006. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
> 2006.
>
>
> Regards,
> --
> Antoine Zimmermann
> Researcher at:
> Laboratoire d'InfoRmatique en Image et Systèmes d'information
> Database Group
> 7 Avenue Jean Capelle
> 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex
> France
> Tel: +33(0)4 72 43 61 74 - Fax: +33(0)4 72 43 87 13
> Lecturer at:
> Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon
> 20 Avenue Albert Einstein
> 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex
> France
> antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr
> http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
>
>


-- 
Michael Uschold, PhD
   Senior Ontology Consultant, Semantic Arts
   LinkedIn: http://tr.im/limfu
   Skype, Twitter: UscholdM
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 18:49:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:27 UTC