OWL 2 -- Call for Implementations, new Drafts

[Sandro Hawke]

OWL 2, a compatible extension to OWL 1, is now a W3C Candidate
Recommendation.  This means that if you are a developer of an OWL
system, it may be a good time to start adopting OWL 2.  The design is
not likely to change now, and this is the time to tell us about any
problems that come up during implementation.  Also, the primer, quick
reference, and new features document, (which are non-normative documents
intended to help people understand OWL) are now at Last Call, indicating
we think they are essentially done.

A good place to start is the OWL 2 Document Overview:

   http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/

It gives a brief overview of OWL2, and offers a guide to each of the
other OWL 2 documents.  We'll be tracking what we know of
implementations here:

   http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Implementations


Please send implementation reports and any other comments to
public-owl-comments@... by 30 July.  Soon after that, we expect to
proceed to Proposed Recommendation and Recommendation.  Discussion
among OWL developers is welcome at public-owl-dev@....

  -- Sandro Hawke, W3C Staff Contact, OWL Working Group

[AzamatAbdoullaev]

SH: "we expect to proceed to Proposed Recommendation and Recommendation."



What i like with the OWL 0, its high understanding of the subject: "Ontology
is a term borrowed from philosophy that refers to the science of describing
the kinds of entities in the world and how they are related."

And what i am missing with the OWL 2, the former definition, belittled as:
"Ontologies are formalized vocabularies of terms, often covering a specific
domain and shared by a community of users. They specify the definitions of
terms by describing their relationships with other terms in the ontology."
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/

Here are more inconsistencies. "OWL 2 is a knowledge representation
language, designed to formulate, exchange and reason with knowledge about a
domain of interest...these basic notions: Axioms: the basic statements that
an OWL ontology expresses; Entities: elements used to refer to real-world
objects; Expressions: combinations of entities to form complex descriptions
from basic ones".

Let's see what entities are here. "All atomic constituents of statements, be
they objects (John, Mary), categories (female) or relations (married) are
called entities. In OWL 2, we denote objects as individuals, categories as
classes and relations as properties."

Are all these entities, individuals, classes, properties, entities of
real-world objects?

In the primer there is a heading. "Advanced class relationships: (class)
intersection, union and complement",
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-owl2-primer-20090611/

If somebody proposing a modeling language "designed to represent rich and
complex knowledge about things, groups of things, and relations between
things", it would be wise to distinguish the formal set theory operations,
f: SxS to S, from the relationships proper, R = SxS, where S is an unordered
collection of distinct elements (members, objects, entities), and R is an
ordered collection of distinct elements. The samples of pairing
relationships between sets (classes) are "is equivalent of", "is a
complement of", "is a subset of", "has the same cardinality", etc., between
elements "is equal to", "is less than", etc. In algebra of relation, we do
operations (binary) on relations (binary).

I mentioned before with other standard candidate and have to repeat again:
"Strongly believe any standardization work involving ontology and semantic
technology standards needs a deep fundamental research tested with effective
knowledge and content systems and real world applications."

I'd add: an open public debate as far as "the W3C OWL 2 Web Ontology
Language (OWL) is a Semantic Web language...'', and as far as standards are
today may go as binding laws, both for humans and machines.



Azamat Abdoullaev

http://www.semanticwww.com

http://www.eis.com.cy




----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@...>
To: <semantic-web@...>; <public-owl-dev@...>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 8:14 PM
Subject: OWL 2 -- Call for Implementations, new Drafts

> OWL 2, a compatible extension to OWL 1, is now a W3C Candidate
> Recommendation.  This means that if you are a developer of an OWL
> system, it may be a good time to start adopting OWL 2.  The design is
> not likely to change now, and this is the time to tell us about any
> problems that come up during implementation.  Also, the primer, quick
> reference, and new features document, (which are non-normative documents
> intended to help people understand OWL) are now at Last Call, indicating
> we think they are essentially done.
>
> A good place to start is the OWL 2 Document Overview:
>
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/
>
> It gives a brief overview of OWL2, and offers a guide to each of the
> other OWL 2 documents.  We'll be tracking what we know of
> implementations here:
>
>   http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Implementations
>
>
> Please send implementation reports and any other comments to
> public-owl-comments@... by 30 July.  Soon after that, we expect to
> proceed to Proposed Recommendation and Recommendation.  Discussion
> among OWL developers is welcome at public-owl-dev@....
>
>  -- Sandro Hawke, W3C Staff Contact, OWL Working Group
>
>

[Sandro Hawke]

> SH: "we expect to proceed to Proposed Recommendation and Recommendation."
>
>
>
> What i like with the OWL 0, its high understanding of the subject: "Ontology
> is a term borrowed from philosophy that refers to the science of describing
> the kinds of entities in the world and how they are related."
>
> And what i am missing with the OWL 2, the former definition, belittled as:
> "Ontologies are formalized vocabularies of terms, often covering a specific
> domain and shared by a community of users. They specify the definitions of
> terms by describing their relationships with other terms in the ontology."
> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/
>
> Here are more inconsistencies. "OWL 2 is a knowledge representation
> language, designed to formulate, exchange and reason with knowledge about a
> domain of interest...these basic notions: Axioms: the basic statements that
> an OWL ontology expresses; Entities: elements used to refer to real-world
> objects; Expressions: combinations of entities to form complex descriptions
> from basic ones".
>
> Let's see what entities are here. "All atomic constituents of statements, be
> they objects (John, Mary), categories (female) or relations (married) are
> called entities. In OWL 2, we denote objects as individuals, categories as
> classes and relations as properties."
>
> Are all these entities, individuals, classes, properties, entities of
> real-world objects?
>
> In the primer there is a heading. "Advanced class relationships: (class)
> intersection, union and complement",
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-owl2-primer-20090611/
>
> If somebody proposing a modeling language "designed to represent rich and
> complex knowledge about things, groups of things, and relations between
> things", it would be wise to distinguish the formal set theory operations,
> f: SxS to S, from the relationships proper, R = SxS, where S is an unordered
> collection of distinct elements (members, objects, entities), and R is an
> ordered collection of distinct elements. The samples of pairing
> relationships between sets (classes) are "is equivalent of", "is a
> complement of", "is a subset of", "has the same cardinality", etc., between
> elements "is equal to", "is less than", etc. In algebra of relation, we do
> operations (binary) on relations (binary).
>
> I mentioned before with other standard candidate and have to repeat again:
> "Strongly believe any standardization work involving ontology and semantic
> technology standards needs a deep fundamental research tested with effective
> knowledge and content systems and real world applications."
>
> I'd add: an open public debate as far as "the W3C OWL 2 Web Ontology
> Language (OWL) is a Semantic Web language...'', and as far as standards are
> today may go as binding laws, both for humans and machines.

While the Working Group is interested in feedback, we do ask that people
send their comments to our public comments list if they want us to read
them, discuss them as a group, and reply.  (Also, please do NOT cross
post to that list, since it may cause other people to accidentally
submit comments if they reply to you.)  It helps if the comments suggest
specific, practical things we should do.

Of course, if you just meant this as a public discussion item, that's
fine.

(My apologies for cross posting, but I thought it was important to
clarify the comment procedure in all the places this message was
posted.)

     - Sandro

> Azamat Abdoullaev
>
> http://www.semanticwww.com
>
> http://www.eis.com.cy
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@...>
> To: <semantic-web@...>; <public-owl-dev@...>
> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 8:14 PM
> Subject: OWL 2 -- Call for Implementations, new Drafts
>
>
> > OWL 2, a compatible extension to OWL 1, is now a W3C Candidate
> > Recommendation.  This means that if you are a developer of an OWL
> > system, it may be a good time to start adopting OWL 2.  The design is
> > not likely to change now, and this is the time to tell us about any
> > problems that come up during implementation.  Also, the primer, quick
> > reference, and new features document, (which are non-normative documents
> > intended to help people understand OWL) are now at Last Call, indicating
> > we think they are essentially done.
> >
> > A good place to start is the OWL 2 Document Overview:
> >
> >   http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/
> >
> > It gives a brief overview of OWL2, and offers a guide to each of the
> > other OWL 2 documents.  We'll be tracking what we know of
> > implementations here:
> >
> >   http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Implementations
> >
> >
> > Please send implementation reports and any other comments to
> > public-owl-comments@... by 30 July.  Soon after that, we expect to
> > proceed to Proposed Recommendation and Recommendation.  Discussion
> > among OWL developers is welcome at public-owl-dev@....
> >
> >  -- Sandro Hawke, W3C Staff Contact, OWL Working Group
> >
> >

[AzamatAbdoullaev]

SH: While the Working Group is interested in feedback, we do ask that people
send their comments to our public comments list if they want us to read
them, discuss them as a group, and reply.  (Also, please do NOT cross post
to that list, since it may cause other people to accidentally
submit comments if they reply to you.)  It helps if the comments suggest
specific, practical things we should do."

OK, without the cross-posting. Now what i tried to hint several times in a
soft way. With all my esteem to all its contributers and editors,
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/, in my humble but frank opinion, the
project, if not foundered, is certainly far away from the status of being a
standard, even "recommended standard", both in its parts and in the whole.
As an excuse, it must be mentioned that this group faced more complex task:
to merge different pieces into a single whole. For each part of work, a
listing of principal discrepancies and inconsistences and contradictories
could be presented, with one pragmatic suggestion: since it is a
time-consuming job to read all these pieces and bits, w3c could assign the
critical report to our company in due course. The knowledge of ontology and
semantics applied leaves much to be desired, and insisting on this version
will do nothing but harm the idea of semantic web, imho.

Azamat Abdoullaev
EIS Encyclopedic Intelligent Systems Ltd
http://www.standardontology.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@...>
To: "Azamat" <abdoul@...>
Cc: "'SW-forum'" <semantic-web@...>; "[ontolog-forum] "
<ontolog-forum@...>; <public-owl-dev@...>
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 3:06 AM
Subject: Re: OWL 2 -- Call for Implementations, new Drafts

>
>> SH: "we expect to proceed to Proposed Recommendation and Recommendation."
>>
>>
>>
>> What i like with the OWL 0, its high understanding of the subject:
>> "Ontology
>> is a term borrowed from philosophy that refers to the science of
>> describing
>> the kinds of entities in the world and how they are related."
>>
>> And what i am missing with the OWL 2, the former definition, belittled
>> as:
>> "Ontologies are formalized vocabularies of terms, often covering a
>> specific
>> domain and shared by a community of users. They specify the definitions
>> of
>> terms by describing their relationships with other terms in the
>> ontology."
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/
>>
>> Here are more inconsistencies. "OWL 2 is a knowledge representation
>> language, designed to formulate, exchange and reason with knowledge about
>> a
>> domain of interest...these basic notions: Axioms: the basic statements
>> that
>> an OWL ontology expresses; Entities: elements used to refer to real-world
>> objects; Expressions: combinations of entities to form complex
>> descriptions
>> from basic ones".
>>
>> Let's see what entities are here. "All atomic constituents of statements,
>> be
>> they objects (John, Mary), categories (female) or relations (married) are
>> called entities. In OWL 2, we denote objects as individuals, categories
>> as
>> classes and relations as properties."
>>
>> Are all these entities, individuals, classes, properties, entities of
>> real-world objects?
>>
>> In the primer there is a heading. "Advanced class relationships: (class)
>> intersection, union and complement",
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-owl2-primer-20090611/
>>
>> If somebody proposing a modeling language "designed to represent rich and
>> complex knowledge about things, groups of things, and relations between
>> things", it would be wise to distinguish the formal set theory
>> operations,
>> f: SxS to S, from the relationships proper, R = SxS, where S is an
>> unordered
>> collection of distinct elements (members, objects, entities), and R is an
>> ordered collection of distinct elements. The samples of pairing
>> relationships between sets (classes) are "is equivalent of", "is a
>> complement of", "is a subset of", "has the same cardinality", etc.,
>> between
>> elements "is equal to", "is less than", etc. In algebra of relation, we
>> do
>> operations (binary) on relations (binary).
>>
>> I mentioned before with other standard candidate and have to repeat
>> again:
>> "Strongly believe any standardization work involving ontology and
>> semantic
>> technology standards needs a deep fundamental research tested with
>> effective
>> knowledge and content systems and real world applications."
>>
>> I'd add: an open public debate as far as "the W3C OWL 2 Web Ontology
>> Language (OWL) is a Semantic Web language...'', and as far as standards
>> are
>> today may go as binding laws, both for humans and machines.
>
> While the Working Group is interested in feedback, we do ask that people
> send their comments to our public comments list if they want us to read
> them, discuss them as a group, and reply.  (Also, please do NOT cross
> post to that list, since it may cause other people to accidentally
> submit comments if they reply to you.)  It helps if the comments suggest
> specific, practical things we should do.
>
> Of course, if you just meant this as a public discussion item, that's
> fine.
>
> (My apologies for cross posting, but I thought it was important to
> clarify the comment procedure in all the places this message was
> posted.)
>
>     - Sandro
>
>> Azamat Abdoullaev
>>
>> http://www.semanticwww.com
>>
>> http://www.eis.com.cy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@...>
>> To: <semantic-web@...>; <public-owl-dev@...>
>> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 8:14 PM
>> Subject: OWL 2 -- Call for Implementations, new Drafts
>>
>>
>> > OWL 2, a compatible extension to OWL 1, is now a W3C Candidate
>> > Recommendation.  This means that if you are a developer of an OWL
>> > system, it may be a good time to start adopting OWL 2.  The design is
>> > not likely to change now, and this is the time to tell us about any
>> > problems that come up during implementation.  Also, the primer, quick
>> > reference, and new features document, (which are non-normative
>> > documents
>> > intended to help people understand OWL) are now at Last Call,
>> > indicating
>> > we think they are essentially done.
>> >
>> > A good place to start is the OWL 2 Document Overview:
>> >
>> >   http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/
>> >
>> > It gives a brief overview of OWL2, and offers a guide to each of the
>> > other OWL 2 documents.  We'll be tracking what we know of
>> > implementations here:
>> >
>> >   http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Implementations
>> >
>> >
>> > Please send implementation reports and any other comments to
>> > public-owl-comments@... by 30 July.  Soon after that, we expect to
>> > proceed to Proposed Recommendation and Recommendation.  Discussion
>> > among OWL developers is welcome at public-owl-dev@....
>> >
>> >  -- Sandro Hawke, W3C Staff Contact, OWL Working Group
>> >
>> >

[jos.deroo]

Sandro,

OWL 2 is excellent work, really and I more than appreciate all the hard work
of the whole group!
In the minimal spare time that I collect I am trying to implement some pieces
of OWL 2 as in http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2003/03swap/eye-owl2.html
So far the experience is positive and I will try to extend it and combine it with
the rest of our work.

Thanks and we can work it out :-)

Kind regards,

Jos De Roo | Agfa HealthCare
Senior Researcher | HE/Advanced Clinical Applications Research
T  [phone]
http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

Quadrat NV, Kortrijksesteenweg 157, 9830 Sint-Martens-Latem, Belgium
http://www.agfa.com/healthcare

Sandro Hawke <sandro@...>
Sent by: semantic-web-request@...

06/15/2009 07:14 PM

To	semantic-web@..., public-owl-dev@...
cc
Subject	OWL 2 -- Call for Implementations, new Drafts

OWL 2, a compatible extension to OWL 1, is now a W3C Candidate
Recommendation.  This means that if you are a developer of an OWL
system, it may be a good time to start adopting OWL 2.  The design is
not likely to change now, and this is the time to tell us about any
problems that come up during implementation.  Also, the primer, quick
reference, and new features document, (which are non-normative documents
intended to help people understand OWL) are now at Last Call, indicating
we think they are essentially done.

A good place to start is the OWL 2 Document Overview:

  http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/

It gives a brief overview of OWL2, and offers a guide to each of the
other OWL 2 documents.  We'll be tracking what we know of
implementations here:

  http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Implementations


Please send implementation reports and any other comments to
public-owl-comments@... by 30 July.  Soon after that, we expect to
proceed to Proposed Recommendation and Recommendation.  Discussion
among OWL developers is welcome at public-owl-dev@....

 -- Sandro Hawke, W3C Staff Contact, OWL Working Group