An OWL 2 Far?

author: Ian Horrocks, University of Oxford
author: Tim Finin, University of Maryland
author: Michel Dumontier, Carleton University
author: Stefan Decker, DERI Galway, National University of Ireland, Galway
chairman: Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Bell Labs, Alcatel-Lucent
published: Nov. 24, 2008, recorded: October 2008, views: 960

Slides

Slides
0:00	Who the hell needs description logics anyway?
3:04	Who the hell needs description logics anyway?
3:26	Real People (not AI Researchers) have real problems!
4:00	Description Logics – Axioms about the world (1)
4:21	Description Logics – Axioms about the world (2)
4:38	Description Logics – Axioms about the world (3)
5:02	About missing Boats...
8:54	An OWL 2 Far? ISWC2008 Panel
9:42	Goals for the Semantic Web
10:51	The Semantic Web
12:26	Comments on Semantic Web Languages
13:01	Current challenges
20:20	An OWL 2 Far ISWC 2008 panel
20:29	Dude, where’s my KR Language?
22:20	Has OWL won the KR wars?
22:45	An example with unmet needs
24:16	Another example with unmet needs
25:15	Let a couple of flowers bloom
29:16	AN OWL 2 FAR?
29:29	OWL(2) QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (1)
30:36	OWL(2) QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (2)
30:44	OWL(2) QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (3)
30:49	OWL(2) QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (4)
31:24	OWL FALLACIES (1)
31:33	OWL FALLACIES (2)
31:56	OWL FALLACIES (3)
32:18	OWL FALLACIES (4)
32:26	OWL FALLACIES (5)
32:37	OWL FALLACIES (6)
32:41	CHOOSE HOPE OVER FEAR (1)
33:17	CHOOSE HOPE OVER FEAR (2)
38:33	OWL FALLACIES (4)
42:37	CHOOSE HOPE OVER FEAR (2)

Report a problem or upload files

If you have found a problem with this lecture or would like to send us extra material, articles, exercises, etc., please use our ticket system to describe your request and upload the data.
Enter your e-mail into the 'Cc' field, and we will keep you updated with your request's status.

Lecture popularity: You need to login to cast your vote.

Description

The definition of OWL, the ontology language underlying the Semantic Web, is based on formal representation methods. This provides benefits, in that tools have a firm definition of what they are supposed to do, but can have problems, due to difficulty or expense of building tools or mismatch with needs. The panel will discuss whether the general idea of designing standard Semantic Web languages with steadily increasing power (e.g., the progression from RDF to RDFS to OWL to OWL 2 to …) all based on formal methods is the right way to support the Semantic Web. What level of expressive power does the Semantic Web need? How should standard Semantic Web languages be designed? Does the Semantic Web even need formality?