Ivan’s private site

January 15, 2009

OWL panel, documents, comments…

Filed under: Semantic Web,Work Related — Ivan Herman @ 8:56
Tags: , ,

Right before Christmas the videos from the ISWC2008 conference were released. (Nice Christmas present from Tim Finin and his colleagues…) So I re-listened to the panel discussion “An OWL 2 Far?”. It is always good to listen to such discussions after a few months and, shall we say, with a slightly cooler head… It is clear from the discussion (and I guess all parties can agree on that) that the different views on OWL still generate passionate feelings and discussions…

A few weeks after the conference a bunch of OWL documents were published; I also had a blog on a particular profile of it, namely OWL-RL (one of the issues discussed quite vehemently at that panel, including by yours truly…). What is slightly surprising is that, in contrast to the passions raised there, not many comments have been submitted to the Working Group yet (look at the public archive of the mailing list). This is the time to do this, though: the OWL 2 documents are in Last Call in the W3C process, ie, this is when the technical design is getting finalized. The Last Call period ends on the 23rd of January, which is not that far away… So, please, if you have concerns or issues, or even if you just want say what a wonderful work that is, speak up now!



  1. Here are some photos from the panel (and ISWC’08 in general):

    Collaborative Protege

    Comment by Uldis Bojars — January 15, 2009 @ 11:15

  2. Well, you can’t complain now: just before (and after) the official deadline, dozens of comments on OWL2 flooded in, and of very different nature. Some very positive, some strongly critical; some detailed and informed, some obviously drafted in for drummed up support. Very curious to see where this will go…

    Comment by Frank van Harmelen — January 31, 2009 @ 17:07

  3. Frank 🙂

    But yes, there are enough comments now. But I do believe it is good, better now than later.I must say that some of the comments were, in my personal view, led by the fact that the group made big mistakes in getting through certain messages or, in some cases, some messages were simply lost. A typical example is the role of RDF in OWL 2 (which, in spite of the impression given, has not changed, technically, compared to OWL 1). Hopefully this will be adequately addressed… (it has to!:-). As you say, I am also very curious to see what will happen.



    Comment by Ivan Herman — February 1, 2009 @ 9:45

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: