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

Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Example why current RDF mapping for QCRs might hurt OWL-1.1-Full [Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-68]

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:31:47 -0800
Message-Id: <p0623091ac38b9c1fdbb6@[192.168.1.6]>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Cc: Owl Dev <public-owl-dev@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>

>
>I see a solution offered by Peter, and one offered by Pat. (I 
>suggest more intuitive names for the properties).

I agree, those names were just off the cuff.

>Both suggest additional vocabulary terms.
>
>Pat, would it be possible to explain the advantage of your solution 
>over the one Peter suggests?

It was intended more to be something acceptable to all parties. But I 
think it has some advantages. It avoids having an historical debate 
about the old DAML terminology, it involves fewer terminological 
changes from OWL, it doesn't extend the user vocabulary much (and 
where it does, it corresponds to a mental distinction that people are 
going to have to make in any case, whatever happens) and it is 
slightly more elegant, if I do say so myself.

Pat


>
>Thanks,
>
>Alan


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC		(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502			(850)291 0667    cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Monday, 17 December 2007 03:32:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:55 GMT