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

RE: [LC response] To Jeremy Carroll Re: New comment: NegativePropertyAssertions

From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 17:18:05 -0700
To: "'Michael Schneider'" <schneid@fzi.de>
Cc: <public-owl-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001e01c9de60$9c121ff0$d4365fd0$@com>

We will not be objecting on this point, but see this as part of the wider issue to which we have already recorded objection [1]

Jeremy

[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009May/0012.html


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Schneider [mailto:schneid@fzi.de]
> Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 1:20 AM
> To: jeremy@topquadrant.com
> Cc: public-owl-comments@w3.org
> Subject: [LC response] To Jeremy Carroll Re: New comment:
> NegativePropertyAssertions
> 
> Dear Jeremy,
> 
> Thank you for your comment
>      <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-
> comments/2009May/0017.html>
> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
> 
> The Working Group discussed this topic, in the context of ISSUE-81
> <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/81>, and decided
> not to use an RDF encoding of the proposed form for negative
> property assertions. Although such a mapping has the effect
> of reducing the additional vocabulary required for OWL 2 in RDF,
> the Working Group believes that this advantage is more than outweighed
> by several disadvantages: it obscures the fact that this is a
> new feature in OWL 2, impedes the ability to retain ontology structure
> in RDF, and would make it more difficult for both users and tools
> to specify and detect negative property assertions in RDF-encoded
> OWL 2 ontologies. The Working Group does not find any new information
> in your proposal that might justify reopening the issue.
> 
> Regarding the claim that this is an advanced feature that is unlikely
> to be interoperably supported, the Working Group sees no reason to
> believe
> that this is the case. On the contrary, the feature is already
> supported
> by FaCT++, HermiT and Pellet. In addition, Oracle is planning to
> support
> negative property assertions in a soon to be released version of OWL
> Prime
> (see <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Implementations>), and the
> Working Group is also aware of another implementation of OWL 2 RL for
> which it has been reported that supporting negative property assertions
> was straightforward. Finally, the OWL 2 test suite includes relevant
> tests, and these are already being passed by multiple implementations
> (see <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Test_Suite_Status>).
> 
> Therefore, the Working Group does not intend to make the change you
> propose.
> 
> 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,
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider and Michael Schneider
> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2009 00:18:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 May 2009 00:18:56 GMT