W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > January to March 2007

motivations for owl 1.1 design choices

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:46:37 +0000
Message-ID: <45D08BDD.3020607@hpl.hp.com>
To: public-owl-dev@w3.org


Hi

I am sorry that I am somewhat behind on owl 1.1; I am trying to catch up 
at the moment.

One area that I could do with some help is understanding the motivations 
for the choice of the new features. In particular I read:

http://owl1_1.cs.manchester.ac.uk/overview.html#1
[[
designed to provide simple extensions to OWL DL that

    1. have been requested by major users of OWL DL;
    2. have effective reasoning methods, as evidenced by theoretical 
results; and
    3. are expected to be implemented by the developers of OWL DL reasoners.

]]

It's unclear whether this is a conjunction or a disjunction.

i.e. are all new features ones requested by major users of OWL DL, or 
only some of them?

are all the features ones for which effective reasoning methods are 
known to exist, are they all expected to be implemented?

====

I am aware that QCR are required by some OWL DL users.

How much of SROIQ is similarly in response to user request, and how much 
is it merely a statement of the possible; without being a comment on the 
desirability of these features?

====

we are trying to determine which parts of OWL 1.1 are the most critical, 
so that we can prioritise our attention and support for those features. 
This seems to be about understanding the 'pull' rather than the 'push'. 
The SROIQ paper gives the push; are there clear indications for the pull 
somewhere; maybe in the OWL experiences and directions workshop?

Jeremy
Received on Monday, 12 February 2007 15:47:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:54 GMT