AW: DAML -> OWL Converter generates OWL FULL only / OWL VALIDATOR

Hi -

I don't think that this is a feasile solution, since
full (complete and sound) support of FULL is impossible,
whereas DL/Lite is at least within foreseeable reach.

Of course, someone will have to work a little harder
than just replacing 3 characters in a Perl script,
since a DAML+OIL->DL converter involves
distinguishing Object- and DatatypeProperties.

This is not particularly difficult, but obviously
a little work.

The species validator Sean and me worked on during
the last weeks is available at 

http://potato.cs.man.ac.uk:8081/OWL/Validator


There are still  a
number of grey areas that need tightening up and some aspects that are
being ignored (including annotations), so we do not claim
completeness. It is usefull enough to show that several
test cases that were supposed to Lite are not Lite and
that the GUIDE Ontology is broken wrt. import and uses
several namespaces incorrectly.


Mit freundlichen Gru?en,
Best regards,

Raphael Volz
Institut AIFB, Universitat Karlsruhe
http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/rvo
volz@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de 

WIM, FZI Karlsruhe
http://wim.fzi.de/
volz@fzi.de

Fax: 01212-5-470-17-365


> -----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Jim Hendler [mailto:hendler@cs.umd.edu]
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 20. Februar 2003 22:22
> An: Raphael Volz; Webont
> Betreff: Re: DAML -> OWL Converter BROKEN
> 
> 
> At 16:30 +0000 2/20/03, Raphael Volz wrote:
> >Hi -
> >
> >it is broken since there
> >is no such thing as an owl:Property, hence it
> >does NOT generate any valid OWL ontologies.
> >
> >In concluseion we do NOT have
> >"  we have well over 100 ontologies that cleanly map from DAML to OWL,
> >so we have lots of examples  (currently all the ontologies in the "
> >
> >as Jim claims.
> >
> 
> The OwlConverter has been fixed to generate rdf:Property rather than 
> owl:Property.  Interestingly, since we once had owl:Property in some 
> of the docs, the validator we were using didn't catch this error, 
> suspect there are others as well. We will run a more complete set of 
> tests when the Last Call documents  are done
>   -JH
> 
> 
> >Mit freundlichen Gru?en,
> >Best regards,
> >
> >Raphael Volz
> >Institut AIFB, Universitat Karlsruhe
> >http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/rvo
> >volz@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de
> >
> >WIM, FZI Karlsruhe
> >http://wim.fzi.de/
> >volz@fzi.de
> >
> >Fax: +49-1212-5-470-17-365
> >
> >
> >-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
> >Von: www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
> >[mailto:www-webont-wg-request@w3.org]Im Auftrag von Jim Hendler
> >Gesendet: Donnerstag, 20. Februar 2003 14:55
> >An: Ian Horrocks; Dan Connolly
> >Cc: Peter F. Patel-Schneider; Guus Schreiber; www-webont-wg@w3.org
> >Betreff: Re: Imports issue
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>As far as implementation in general is concerned, as I have mentioned
> >>before, you can't expect implementors to put too much effort in while
> >>the language specification still appears to be unstable!
> >
> >let me only address this issue -- it seems there is some
> >misunderstanding in the WG (not necessarily you Ian, I'm just using
> >this as an excuse for something I've been meaning to send for a
> >while):
> >
> >Our hope is to move from Last Call directly to Proposed
> >Recommendation (i.e. skipping the Candidate Recommendation phase).
> >To do this, we have to show  TWO EXISTING IMPLEMENTATIONS of every
> >feature in the language.  Proving something implementable is not
> >enough.   The mail from Sean and Jeremy, for example, shows two
> >implementations of Imports, and thus that may be sufficient.  We also
> >need same for everything else in our design.  Our language won't be
> >stable, however, until after LC.  As a result, if we don't want to
> >have to have a long CR period, we NEED people to start implementing
> >NOW (despite the instability) and then to tune as the language
> >finishes (at this point we are not making major changes likely to
> >require significant implementation changes)
> >
> >I've started working on our implementation report, and to move out of
> >LC I think we need the following:
> >   i. Another independent implementation of Owl Lite.  The Univ of
> >Maryland will do one, but we need another.  (Note: I do not believe
> >it counts to say that all DL implementations also implement Lite,
> >because that doesn't help us validate the decision to have Lite as a
> >separate sublanguage).
> >   ii. Two separate DL implementations that have actually been shown to
> >pass all, or at least most, of our DL tests (Euler will be needed in
> >the Full section).  While I don't doubt there are a number of systems
> >around that COULD pass our tests, someone needs to actually show they
> >work.  I'm hoping the "Manchester connection" (I.e. University and/or
> >Network Infernece) will do one - someone needs to volunteer to do
> >another (this could be as simple as writing a tool to cooerce our
> >test cases into Racer or other such system)
> >   iii. As far as I can tell, none of our documents have been changed
> >to address the issue of what is expected in datatypes.  This means
> >that as it currently stands, we need to produce two sound and
> >complete implementations that include all the possible rules for all
> >the xsd: datatypes and their combination.  My hope is we'll fix this
> >by removing the requirement for sound and complete datatype reasoning
> >and put in something rational (OIL is a good model), but if not, we
> >will need these two implementations
> >   iv. I think we will need a second participant to do a Owl type
> >checker like Sean is doing -- this is because we make a big deal
> >about this in the conformance part of Test.  (If we were to water our
> >wording down a bit, we might be able to get away with one, so I'm not
> >too worried  about this one)
> >
> >Here's the good news
> >   we have well over 100 ontologies that cleanly map from DAML to OWL,
> >so we have lots of examples  (currently all the ontologies in the
> >DAML library which can validate against DAML can be mapped to Owl
> >using the UM converter)
> >   we have a number of DAML tools that are being adopted for OWL
> >   we have several implementations of Full being done (I consider Euler
> >one of these, cwm another, and we have a student looking at mapping
> >Full to a FOL or HOL prover)
> >   we have a couple of validators coming along - Mike's and Sean'si
> >   we have at least two parsers (Jena as is, and a new UMd one) which
> >can create correct triples for OWL (Jeremy, I think this is true
> >based on my understanding of what is in Jena - I know you'll do more
> >eventually to make it more OWL aware, but I think it already counts
> >as a parser - if I'm wrong, please help me out)
> >   Within the next week or so we will have at least one web site that
> >is entirely powered by RDF/OWL tools - it will demonstrate the
> >interoperability of a number of the pieces above.
> >
> >   So - we either need to figure out that we can do all the things in
> >the "to be done" section by end of LC period, or we need to have a
> >Candidate Recommendation period with a call for implementations.
> >Given the fact that the number of working things (the good news)
> >outweighs the still needed part, I'm still hoping we can skip CR.
> >
> >
> >--
> >Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
> >Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
> >Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
> >Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
> >http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
> 
> 
> -- 
> Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
> Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
> Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
> Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
> http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
>

Received on Friday, 21 February 2003 05:33:11 UTC