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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joanne Luciano, PhD
Predictive Medicine, Inc.
45 Orchard Street
Belmont MA 02478-3008
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
