Disqus - Latest Comments for John Goodwin

Re: OWLED 2006 is Here

John Goodwin — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 06:26:45 -0000

Maybe the point isn’t that OWL is unreal but that it’s hard?

I'm not convinced that OWL itself is actually that hard. This could be because I have a maths background, and don't have any IT baggage that means I have to learn a whole new paradigm. The hard part for me is the actual knowledge modeling when it comes to writing complex domain ontologies. Often domain experts in a field like geography tend to think in the vernacular and it can be quite hard identify which concepts really exist and how they relate to each other. I think once you have a good knowledge model in place it is reasonably straight forward to convert it to OWL [1]. The main difficulty arises when trying to create botches or approximations for things OWL cannot handle.

[1] no doubt I'm going to regret claiming that at some point :)

Re: Owlgres: A Scalable OWL Reasoner

John Goodwin — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:50:04 -0000

Is there a demo version we can download and experiment with?

Re: “OWL 2″ is the Next Version of the Web Ontology Language

John Goodwin — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 04:03:25 -0000

Good to meet you at OWLED - hope you enjoy you're well earned beer :)

So just to clarify...what we now commonly know as OWL1.1 has been relabelled OWL2.0, or will OWL2.0 be something different again?

Re: Owlgres 0.1: First Release

John Goodwin — Thu, 08 May 2008 03:53:12 -0000

Woo hoo :)

Re: US Politics and Europeans

John Goodwin — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 03:27:17 -0000

I tend to get most of my knowledge of US Politics from the Daily Show :)

Re: Why Reasoning Matters: Consistency Checking (1)

John Goodwin — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 03:47:22 -0000

I don't know how hard it is, but it would be nice to see more explanations for inconsistencies in the ABox. I recently converted some legacy data to RDF, and with the help of Topbraid, Pellet and a simple OWL ontology I managed to find errors in the data...these errors being highlighted as an inconsistency in the ontology.

Re: Why Reasoning Matters: Consistency Checking (1)

John Goodwin — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:19:55 -0000

I've been toying with the idea of only excluding certain bits of the OWL ontology when it comes to checking consistency, but then removing them when it comes to implementing the RDF. For example in some cases "allValuesFrom" restriction might be useful for TBox and ABox consistency checking, but might add little when it comes to querying while also making the reasoning less tractable. Any thoughts?

Re: Why Reasoning Matters: Consistency Checking (1)

John Goodwin — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 03:43:49 -0000

"Ideally this process could be at least semi-automated; but I’m not familiar with any work in this area":

Well another project for Bijan to start if that is the case :)