Dear Jim,
Many thanks.
This is all wonderful the hear.
If the person who's lab is responsible for developing and supporting
one of the most widely used DIG reasoners says "these things are not
mutually exclusive in any way", I've got much more confidence that
all will be OK. :-)
Does t
p.s. note that there was a lot of earlier discussion on this list
about the need for more scalable OWL solutions in the short term -
that was one of the motivations that got us thinking in that
direction...
--
Prof James Hendler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dept of Compute
Bill - I think you see the key point - these things are not mutually
exclusive in any way - high end ontology use needs some of the OWL
1.1 functionality, but wider adoption is likely to come in the data
integration space, where a lot can be done with the simpler "OWL
Mini" (or OWL Fast, or OWL
Many thanks, Jim.
I saw posts by you and others - as well as links to more detailed -
and very recent - discussions.
These are all very helpful.
I was particularly interested in the proposal you, Ora Lassilla, and
others have worked on to "absorb" much of the OWL Lite constructs
into RDF
actually, we're trying to move the discussion to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
there's a thread there that expresses some of my concerns about
moving away from the OWL syntax - given that the primary tools out
there right now still assume the OWL is integrated with the RDF
graph...
At 2:52 PM -0500 11/16
As I expected, the experts are listening. :-)
Many thanks, Holger. That's extremely important to know.
I will dig into the thread for more detail. One main concern would
be whether that was just a token gesture to stay compatible for now,
as opposed to a commitment to remain compatible, u
However, I'd point out, in the last document, where they describe a
mapping of OWL 1.1 to RDF, they make the following caveat:
Not every OWL 1.1 ontology can be serialized in RDF. In particular,
ontologies using the following features of OWL 1.1 cannot be serialized:
1. punning and
2.
Hi All,
I wanted to give more "legs" to this discussion point that came up at
the end of today's HCLSIG TCon, as I think it's extremely important
for us users of RDF & OWL.
Sorry - I don't mean to be a "Chicken Little" on this issue - but as
someone who needs to make practical technical r
Zakim minutes of today's HCLS TC with URLs at can be found at:
http://www.w3.org/2006/11/16-hcls-minutes.html
Eric
Thurs, Nov 16 Teleconference Agenda:
>
> Agenda:
> a) Convene, take roll, review record
> b) Propose next HCLS call Nov 30, 2006, nominate a scribe - Tonya
> c) Update of Agreed Task Actions- any changes in group timelines?
Alan and Jonathan are to draft what they have presented on URI resolutio
Eric,
I have a conflict... Merck is having a job fair at that time and as
I'm on the market I need to attend.
I'll try to call in.
Joanne
On Nov 15, 2006, at 4:06 PM, Eric Neumann wrote:
Thurs, Nov 16 Teleconference Agenda:
Time: 11:00 am EDT Nov 16 , 2006 in America/New York for a durati
11 matches
Mail list logo
