W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-comments@w3.org > April 2009

Re: [LC response] To Jeremy Carroll

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 15:18:42 +0100
Message-Id: <75CC2E31-67CF-4146-91F6-4AA4B498FC7F@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: public-owl-comments@w3.org
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
Please note that the WG has decided to go into a 2nd Last Call  
(instead of CR), with an anticipated publication date of 15th April.  
It would, therefore, be a great help if we could hear from you very  
soon.

Regards,
Ian


On 2 Apr 2009, at 15:07, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>
> More time please.
>
> Jeremy
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ian Horrocks [mailto:ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk]
>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:08 PM
>> To: Jeremy Carroll
>> Cc: public-owl-comments@w3.org
>> Subject: [LC response] To Jeremy Carroll
>>
>> Dear Jeremy,
>>
>> Thank you for your comment
>>       <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/
>> 2009Jan/0051.html>
>> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
>>
>> We will deal with your specific comments regarding the various
>> documents in a separate email. In this email we will address your
>> more general remarks regarding motivation. In particular, you claim
>> that "The rationale document (and the design) has not taken into
>> account the cost of new features particularly to those who do not
>> need them". We note, however, that the story you use to illustrate
>> this claim applies equally well to OWL DL and OWL Full and to OWL1
>> with OWL Lite. For syntax, one could have ontologies published in
>> Turtle, NTriples, Manchester Syntax, etc. Furthermore, one could
>> point to extensions like Protege's extensions for QCRs and user
>> defined datatypes and, for that matter, OWL 1.1 and even current
>> versions of OWL.
>>
>> Thus, we do not believe that the story gives new information or a new
>> perspective. One of the goals of OWL 2 from the beginning was to
>> reduce or eliminate, as much as possible, these costs by producing a
>> standard new version to converge on. We believe the overall
>> advantages and, especially, the new clarity of the specification will
>> make it easier for tool developers to cope with real world ontologies
>> and for new tool developers to enter the market. Furthermore, the
>> working group has continually worked to mitigate the transition
>> costs. OWL 2 deliberately avoids radical new features (such as non-
>> monotonic features, or an entirely new, stratified metamodeling
>> system, or fuzzy extensions). Even features that are well understood
>> and have strong utility and demand were dropped or weakened in
>> response to the sorts of analyses you ask for, e.g., property punning
>> or required n-ary data predicates.
>>
>> Returning to the motivation for new language features, the New
>> Features and Rationale document (NF&R) [1] is being extended to
>> better document the motivation for the new features of OWL 2. We
>> should also mention that NF&R should be read in conjunction with the
>> OWL Use Cases and Requirements document [2], which already motivates
>> some of these new features, e.g., extended annotations. The make up
>> of the OWL working group is indicative of broad support for OWL 2,
>> not just from academia but also from industry, and we also received
>> many supportive comments in response to the call for review (see
>> [3]). Finally, your own comment expresses support for several of the
>> new features, including qualified cardinality constraints, property
>> chain inclusion axioms, (unary) datatypes, annotations and profiles.
>>
>> Finally, you questioned the role of OWLED and its representativeness
>> w.r.t. the OWL community. The current wording of the Overview of the
>> New Features and Requirements mentions several underpinnings of the
>> new features of OWL 2. Only part of this experience came through the
>> OWLED workshops from 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008DC, and only part of
>> that influenced the OWL member submission. There is desire for the
>> new features of OWL 2, and implementation experience as well. The
>> long-term business viability of OWL 2 remains to be determined, of
>> course, but the working group believes that there is sufficient
>> evidence to proceed.
>>
>> In view of the above, the OWL WG does not intend to make any changes
>> to the design of OWL 2 in response to your comment.
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/New_Features_and_Rationale
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req/
>> [3] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Support
>>
>>
>> Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl-
>> comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should suffice). In your
>> acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied
>> with the working group's response to your comment.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ian Horrocks
>> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
>>
>
>
Received on Friday, 3 April 2009 14:19:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 3 April 2009 14:19:36 GMT