An OWL 2 Far?
author: Stefan Decker, DERI Galway, National University of Ireland, Galway
author: Michel Dumontier, Department of Biology, Carleton University
author: Tim Finin, University of Maryland
author: Ian Horrocks, University of Oxford
published: Nov. 24, 2008, recorded: October 2008, views: 1112
Report a problem or upload filesIf 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.
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?
Link this pageWould you like to put a link to this lecture on your homepage?
Go ahead! Copy the HTML snippet !