OWL 2 is now a W3C Proposed Recommendation

[Sandro Hawke]

Following a successful Candidate Recommendation phase, during which we
received reports of more than a dozen implementations [1], OWL 2 has
advanced to Proposed Recommendation.  During this four-week phase, W3C
member organizations [2] have a chance decide whether OWL 2 should be
published as a W3C Recommendation.

We have published new versions of the documents [3], but the changes
since Candidate Recommendation are all minor and editorial.  (The
changes are detailed in a changelog in each document.)  No changes to
software or ontologies should be required.

The new publications are linked from our documentation roadmap:

   http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PR-owl2-overview-20090922/#Documentation_Roadmap

Comments are best sent to public-owl-comments@....  General
discussion of OWL 2 is probably best done on public-owl-dev@... [4].

    -- Sandro   (W3C Staff Contact, OWL WG)

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Implementations
[2] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List
[3] http://www.w3.org/News/2009#item166
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/

[Bene-3]

Hi,

Is there a specific prefix or base URI designated for OWL 2?

OWL 1 provides the URI <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl>
Loading this URI in SWOOP, Protege 4.x or TopBraid Composer gives a
neat ontology representation of the different modelling elements
available in OWL 1.

I was looking at the documents listed in the previous email (and
different references in them) for a corresponding URI in the context
of OWL 2 that I could load in any of these editors, but these
documents still refer to the OWL 1 URI <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl>

Thanks in advance for any comments you may have.

Bene Rodriguez

Postgraduate Student | Intelligence, Agents and Multimedia Group |
School of Electronics and Computer Science | University of Southampton
| Southampton SO17 1BJ | United Kingdom



On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@...> wrote:

> Following a successful Candidate Recommendation phase, during which we
> received reports of more than a dozen implementations [1], OWL 2 has
> advanced to Proposed Recommendation.  During this four-week phase, W3C
> member organizations [2] have a chance decide whether OWL 2 should be
> published as a W3C Recommendation.
>
> We have published new versions of the documents [3], but the changes
> since Candidate Recommendation are all minor and editorial.  (The
> changes are detailed in a changelog in each document.)  No changes to
> software or ontologies should be required.
>
> The new publications are linked from our documentation roadmap:
>
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PR-owl2-overview-20090922/#Documentation_Roadmap
>
> Comments are best sent to public-owl-comments@....  General
> discussion of OWL 2 is probably best done on public-owl-dev@... [4].
>
>    -- Sandro   (W3C Staff Contact, OWL WG)
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Implementations
> [2] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List
> [3] http://www.w3.org/News/2009#item166
> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/
>
>

[Ivan Herman-2]

Bene,

OWL 2 reuses the same URI used by OWL 1. As OWL 2 is an extension to OWL
1, this makes sense.

I cannot comment on the plans of the different editors regarding the
additional OWL 2 features although, AFAIK, Protege does cover part of
OWL 2 already.

Ivan

Bene Rodriguez-Castro wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Is there a specific prefix or base URI designated for OWL 2?
>
> OWL 1 provides the URI <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl>
> Loading this URI in SWOOP, Protege 4.x or TopBraid Composer gives a
> neat ontology representation of the different modelling elements
> available in OWL 1.
>
> I was looking at the documents listed in the previous email (and
> different references in them) for a corresponding URI in the context
> of OWL 2 that I could load in any of these editors, but these
> documents still refer to the OWL 1 URI <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl>
>
> Thanks in advance for any comments you may have.
>
> Bene Rodriguez
>
> Postgraduate Student | Intelligence, Agents and Multimedia Group |
> School of Electronics and Computer Science | University of Southampton
> | Southampton SO17 1BJ | United Kingdom
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@...> wrote:
>> Following a successful Candidate Recommendation phase, during which we
>> received reports of more than a dozen implementations [1], OWL 2 has
>> advanced to Proposed Recommendation.  During this four-week phase, W3C
>> member organizations [2] have a chance decide whether OWL 2 should be
>> published as a W3C Recommendation.
>>
>> We have published new versions of the documents [3], but the changes
>> since Candidate Recommendation are all minor and editorial.  (The
>> changes are detailed in a changelog in each document.)  No changes to
>> software or ontologies should be required.
>>
>> The new publications are linked from our documentation roadmap:
>>
>>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PR-owl2-overview-20090922/#Documentation_Roadmap
>>
>> Comments are best sent to public-owl-comments@....  General
>> discussion of OWL 2 is probably best done on public-owl-dev@... [4].
>>
>>    -- Sandro   (W3C Staff Contact, OWL WG)
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Implementations
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List
>> [3] http://www.w3.org/News/2009#item166
>> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/
>>
>>
>
>

--

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: [phone]
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

[Bijan Parsia-3]

On 12 Oct 2009, at 07:09, Ivan Herman wrote:

> Bene,
>
> OWL 2 reuses the same URI used by OWL 1. As OWL 2 is an extension to  
> OWL
> 1, this makes sense.

Please note that the file you were using (owl.owl) is in the process  
of being updated. Once that is complete and published you should be  
able to load it in the editor of your choice and have the same  
experience you did with the OWL 1 owl.owl file.

There are some people (myself included) who think this is not a good  
way to learn or explore OWL (1 or 2). There was quite a debate about  
it between me (anti) and Holger Knublauch (pro) recently which you  
might find interesting:
        <http://www.w3.org/mid/B6D22E33-5332-4CF3-8582-F6A033BE4C7B@... 
 >

Of course the emphasis in that debate is somewhat different. I  
personally think that owl.owl is *worse* from a pedegogical  
perspective (though, of course, people differ and we have to consider  
what outcomes we're interested in and what other material we're using,  
etc.)

OWL 2 has a lot of excellent, IMHO, learning material including the  
basic language specification itself. For an overview, the Quick  
Reference Guide is quite reasonable.

> I cannot comment on the plans of the different editors regarding the
> additional OWL 2 features although, AFAIK, Protege does cover part of
> OWL 2 already.

Swoop is moribund and will not, unless someone takes up the code (its  
open source), be updated. Frankly, I wouldn't recommend taking up the  
code as it's based on an older version of the OWL API and is generally  
messy. It's not that hard to skin Protege4 to a more Swoopy interface  
(it's gotten reasonably close) and focus on adding the remaining  
missing features.

Protege4 supports, afaik, all of OWL 2 (in a development release).

Cheers,
Bijan.

[Bene-3]

Thank you all for your comments.

> Please note that the file you were using (owl.owl) is in the process of
> being updated. Once that is complete and published you should be able to
> load it in the editor of your choice and have the same experience you did
> with the OWL 1 owl.owl file.

I was a bit puzzled not being able to find an OWL 2 specific file/URI
in the OWL 2 related documentation but not any more :)

> There are some people (myself included) who think this is not a good way to
> learn or explore OWL (1 or 2). There was quite a debate about it between me
> (anti) and Holger Knublauch (pro) recently which you might find interesting:
>
>  <http://www.w3.org/mid/B6D22E33-5332-4CF3-8582-F6A033BE4C7B@...>

Thanks for the interesting thread. As an OWL user, my idea was not to
use the owl.owl file as a starting point for new ontology models.
However, I find it useful when it is open on an ontology editor as a
separate "quick look-up kind-of reference card" of the OWL modelling
elements (specially for those less frequently used).

Cheers,
Bene Rodriguez

[Bijan Parsia-3]

On 13 Oct 2009, at 13:20, Bene Rodriguez-Castro wrote:

> Thank you all for your comments.
>
>> Please note that the file you were using (owl.owl) is in the  
>> process of
>> being updated. Once that is complete and published you should be  
>> able to
>> load it in the editor of your choice and have the same experience  
>> you did
>> with the OWL 1 owl.owl file.
>
> I was a bit puzzled not being able to find an OWL 2 specific file/URI
> in the OWL 2 related documentation but not any more :)

OWL 2 is *not quite done*. Yet :)

>> There are some people (myself included) who think this is not a  
>> good way to
>> learn or explore OWL (1 or 2). There was quite a debate about it  
>> between me
>> (anti) and Holger Knublauch (pro) recently which you might find  
>> interesting:
>>
>>  <http://www.w3.org/mid/B6D22E33-5332-4CF3-8582-F6A033BE4C7B@... 
>> >
>
> Thanks for the interesting thread. As an OWL user, my idea was not to
> use the owl.owl file as a starting point for new ontology models.
> However, I find it useful when it is open on an ontology editor as a
> separate "quick look-up kind-of reference card" of the OWL modelling
> elements (specially for those less frequently used).

You might try:
        http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PR-owl2-quick-reference-20090922/
as well.

I tend to think, perhaps wrongly, that such use is in the minority  
(although people in that minority seem to like it :)). In Swoop, we  
used to follow links to things like rdf:type to the owl.owl file (or  
rdf.rdf file), but that process of loading the file cluttered the  
interface and was confusing (since it wasn't clear if the rdf.rdf was  
*part* of the model, or not). We switched to special casing those  
links to pop up documentation derived from the OWL 1 reference.

In the end, I don't think these *.* files are the best documentation,  
even as QRG, though they certainly can serve such a role in a pinch.

I think it could be interesting to have a version of the spec that  
was, er, "inverted" from a narrative structure to a term oriented  
structure. That structure would make sense as an RDF file. If one had  
a good viewer, it might work ok.

And there's nothing stopping you from producing one! :)

Cheers,
Bijan.