On 12/9/2010 6:32 PM, Ian Horrocks wrote:
> On 9 Dec 2010, at 07:21, Bradley Shoebottom wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I attended a recent TopQuadrant training session in which it was expressed
>that OWL-2 was overly complex and that OWL-RL could do everything that OWL 2
>could with less restrictions.
> I find this statement to be strange tending to disingenuous. (01)
I suppose as written, the statement tends to disingenuous, but I'd like
to cut Bradley some slack - it is a one-sentence summary of what was
probably a two-hour long discussion (I don't think I was the TQ
instructor for Bradley's class, but I have a pretty good idea of the
curriculum of all our courses; OWL usually gets at least 2 hours, even
in an expurgated course). (02)
I find that in the classes I do teach, the students are very concerned
about complexity in the computational sense, so in fact, Ian's comment
about the one sense in which Bradley's statement is accurate, is indeed
the one they are interested in. (03)
The only part of this statement that I find strange it is the statement
that OWL-RL can do everything that OWL 2 (DL) can do. To adjust this
statement, I would say that for many applications, OWL RL allows one to
represent everything one needs, among things that can be represented in
OWL at all (see John Sowa's comment elsewhere in this thread). That
seems quite reasonable, especially in light of how many very useful
models can be expressed with just RDFS+inverse+transitive. Again, I
would cut Bradley some slack; this is almost a throw-away one-liner - I
don't expect him to be this precise. (04)
Dean (05)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2010/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2010
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (06)
|