|
List Info
Thread: Minutes 11-16-06 HCLS teleconference (small correction)
|
|
| Minutes 11-16-06 HCLS teleconference
(small correction) |
|
2006-11-17 13:04:12 |
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>Eric: Other topics? Bill Bug- How do we deal
with the fact that OWL
>>1.1 is moving forward without RDFS? It is very
concerning what
>>stumbling blocks this decoupling will create… Ian
Horrocks is very clear
>>that the constraints that RDFs puts on OWL full
doesn’t support what
>>they need and has caused them to diverge…tool of
choice for OWL 1.1 is
>>something independent of RDF Eric: I’m also
seeing the challenge as
>>no surprise… RDFs is a partial approach, probably
flawed… I’d be
>>surprised if one can’t map from OWL 1.1 to RDF,
>>
>>Susie: in OWL 1.1 discussions, they are saying that
they are not
>>talking about RDF style semantics, could impact the
mathematical
>>foundation of RDF but shouldn’t impact usage of
RDF, a working group is
>>be considered to address this,
>
>
> Let us not jump to conclusions on all this issue yet.
The goal *is* to
> have RDF style semantics, too, eventually (even if it
is not there in
> the current OWL draft). At least it is *our* (W3C's)
goal, and there
I guess I should revise this a bit to avoid any
misunderstandings: W3C
has not yet 'officially' discussed OWL1.1, which has not
been submitted
to W3C yet. So W3C cannot have any goal on the matter yet...
There were
some informal discussions, obviously, and many of us think
that the goal
should be to (also) have RDF style semantics. That is all
that can be
said now...
[Lesson: try to avoid writing any mail under the effect of
sever jet-lag ]
Ivan
> will be ample possibility to have discussions on the
charter. Please not
> the public-owl-dev w3.org is where, most probably, these
discussions
> will take place. YOUR VOICE SHOULD BE HEARD THERE.
>
>
>
> Ivan
--
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
URL: http://www.w3.org/Peop
le/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://
www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-h
erman.net/foaf.rdf
|
|
| Minutes 11-16-06 HCLS teleconference
(small correction) |
|
2006-11-17 15:53:42 |
|
| I would add - as Holger Knublauch and Jim Hendler both pointed out, reading through some of the threads on that list can help to alleviate the misgivings one might have regarding whether there has been sufficient detailed debate surrounding this issue that has taken the needs of all OWL users into consideration. I should have gone there first, before mentioning it directly in the TCon.
As I mentioned in my reply to Jim Hendler, I think I was just taken aback by the convincing, collective weight of the arguments presented by the several papers given by various U. Manchester groups at the OWL ED 2006 meeting last week against FULL RDF compatibility for some of the OWL 1.1 (and SHOIQ DL) requirements.
The thought ProtegeOWL v4 - which sounds like a major step ahead from what Joanne Luciano has said and what they describe in the paper on OWL 1.1 support in ProtegeOWL & FaCT++ given at the meeting - will quickly become a tool of choice for those developing OWL ontologies - is a bit worrisome too, as it does not use RDF serialization. Having said that, after reading some more on the lists, it sounds more likely ProtegeOWL v4 will not use RDF as its DEFAULT serialization for very compelling reasons presented in that paper; however, there will likely be an "RDF export" capability, using the RDF mapping that several folks are working on. Whether it will be the typical RDF/XML you get now from ProtegeOWL v3.2 or some other RDF serialization scheme, is likely still open to debate. The open source arena in which Protege and ProtegeOWL dwells will likely bring forth whatever functionality the community decides they require, so long as the underlying mathematical formalism can support it.
I would also add my sense is the OWL 1.1 developers have collectively worked very diligently to accrue feedback from the community (general experience with OWL in many scenarios and related requests for new features) and to discuss these pending changes since many were first announced at last year's OWL ED 2005. What they presented at the OWL ED 2006 meeting last week appears to be the summary outcome of that effort.
As Ivan and others have made clear in the last few months, despite much informal discussion that has already transpired, OWL 1.1 has not yet been officially discussed by the relevant W3C working groups, so the debate is likely to continue for a while.
At least that's that's the view I get as an interested user/bystander. 
Cheers, Bill On Nov 17, 2006, at 8:04 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: will be ample possibility to have discussions on the charter. Please not the public-owl-devw3.org">public-owl-devw3.org is where, most probably, these discussions will take place. YOUR VOICE SHOULD BE HEARD THERE.
Bill Bug Senior Research Analyst/Ontological Engineer
Laboratory for Bioimaging & Anatomical Informatics www.neuroterrain.org Department of Neurobiology & Anatomy Drexel University College of Medicine 2900 Queen Lane Philadelphia, PA 19129 215 991 8430 (ph) 610 457 0443 (mobile) 215 843 9367 (fax)
Please Note: I now have a new email - William.Bu gDrexelMed.edu">William.BugDrexelMed.edu
|
| Minutes 11-16-06 HCLS teleconference
(small correction) |
|
2006-11-17 16:08:55 |
|
Bill,On Nov 17, 2006, at 10:53 AM, William Bug wrote: I would add - as Holger Knublauch and Jim Hendler both pointed out, reading through some of the threads on that list can help to alleviate the misgivings one might have regarding whether there has been sufficient detailed debate surrounding this issue that has taken the needs of all OWL users into consideration. I should have gone there first, before mentioning it directly in the TCon.
This is an important discussion and your raising it on the telecon and on the list is helping to bring clarity to all of us. Thank you for taking the time to dig through the materials, and putting in the effort to formulate and raise the questions which are get the issues and answers brought to the surface for all of us to see.
Joanne
As I mentioned in my reply to Jim Hendler, I think I was just taken aback by the convincing, collective weight of the arguments presented by the several papers given by various U. Manchester groups at the OWL ED 2006 meeting last week against FULL RDF compatibility for some of the OWL 1.1 (and SHOIQ DL) requirements.
The thought ProtegeOWL v4 - which sounds like a major step ahead from what Joanne Luciano has said and what they describe in the paper on OWL 1.1 support in ProtegeOWL & FaCT++ given at the meeting - will quickly become a tool of choice for those developing OWL ontologies - is a bit worrisome too, as it does not use RDF serialization. Having said that, after reading some more on the lists, it sounds more likely ProtegeOWL v4 will not use RDF as its DEFAULT serialization for very compelling reasons presented in that paper; however, there will likely be an "RDF export" capability, using the RDF mapping that several folks are working on. Whether it will be the typical RDF/XML you get now from ProtegeOWL v3.2 or some other RDF serialization scheme, is likely still open to debate. The open source arena in which Protege and ProtegeOWL dwells will likely bring forth whatever functionality the community decides they require, so long as the underlying mathematical formalism can support it.
I would also add my sense is the OWL 1.1 developers have collectively worked very diligently to accrue feedback from the community (general experience with OWL in many scenarios and related requests for new features) and to discuss these pending changes since many were first announced at last year's OWL ED 2005. What they presented at the OWL ED 2006 meeting last week appears to be the summary outcome of that effort.
As Ivan and others have made clear in the last few months, despite much informal discussion that has already transpired, OWL 1.1 has not yet been officially discussed by the relevant W3C working groups, so the debate is likely to continue for a while.
At least that's that's the view I get as an interested user/bystander.
Cheers, Bill On Nov 17, 2006, at 8:04 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: will be ample possibility to have discussions on the charter. Please not the public-owl-devw3.org">public-owl-devw3.org is where, most probably, these discussions will take place. YOUR VOICE SHOULD BE HEARD THERE.
Bill Bug Senior Research Analyst/Ontological Engineer
Laboratory for Bioimaging & Anatomical Informatics www.neuroterrain.org Department of Neurobiology & Anatomy Drexel University College of Medicine 2900 Queen Lane Philadelphia, PA 19129 215 991 8430 (ph) 610 457 0443 (mobile) 215 843 9367 (fax)
Please Note: I now have a new email - William.Bu gDrexelMed.edu">William.BugDrexelMed.edu
Joanne Luciano, PhD Predictive Medicine, Inc. 45 Orchard Street Belmont MA 02478-3008 Email: jluciano predmed.co m">jlucianopredmed.com
|
[1-3]
|
|