Re: OWL vs RDF

[William Bug]

Thanks for the info, Robert. No problemo - we're all working with between 10 - 25% of the resources we really need to get to all the various tasks that need to be done in a timely manner. I just keep mentioning this issue as a "gentle" prod, because I found the ProtegeOWL tutorial immensely helpful when I read quite a while back and think it should probably be REQUIRED reading for everyone both using ProtegeOWL and expecting to have at least a general understanding of how to make best use OWL's expressivity. Having the OWL v1.1 & Data Property issues taken into account in that tutorial would be extremely useful. Cheers, Bill On Oct 27, 2006, at 12:03 PM, Robert Stevens wrote: the Protege OWL tutorial will be updated "real soon now". We'll be doing OWL 1..1 (there wasn't any point updating before 1.1), but also including stuff about data type properties (which can now be reasoned over well) and some stuff about instances. finally, there's a whole lot of  Protege stuff to change.... I wouldn't, however, hold your breath. Perhaps it will be ready  early next year. robert.At 18:45 27/10/2006, William Bug wrote: This is a very important point.  Thanks, Phil. As is spelled out in the wonderful ProtegeOWL Tutorial PDF (which would be wonderful to have updated a bit), leaning on the reasoner during early phases of ontology construction is very helpful, but ultimately once you have more "hardened" components, you can "save" the inferred graph and distribute that for the user community. Cheers, Bill On Oct 27, 2006, at 3:54 AM, Phillip Lord wrote: "Robert" == Robert Stevens < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:   Robert> There's another answer of using the reasoner by building   Robert> your ontology to take advantage of its capabilities. the   Robert> conceptual lego approach relies on the reasoner. Incidentally, Robert's point reminded me of another thing you can do without a reasoner. You can use your reasoner to build your ontology, and then deploy it without. One of the main reasons that people don't like DL reasoners s the overhead that they add to architectures. I think that this is a reasonable point but, in general, only at deployment time. When building your ontology, it's not that much hassle to have a reasoner -- my experience suggests it saves your more time than it costs you. Phil 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED]