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

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:20:04 +0000
Message-ID: <476693A4.2020103@hpl.hp.com>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>, Matthew Pocock <matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, Owl Dev <public-owl-dev@w3.org>, Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

Bijan Parsia wrote:

> Actually, that's not true on several fronts. To mention just a two: 1) 
> IFDP are decidable, just  not particularly implementable in the general 
> case and 2) the WG decided at the F2F to explore "easy keys" to address 
> exactly the foaf sort of case:
>     http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/F2F1_Minutes#Datatypes
> A fuller presentation of the proposal:
>     http://code.google.com/p/owl1-1/wiki/EasyKeyProposal

I was particularly pleased to see this. To me this did seem to be a move 
with near unanimous support from the WG, responding to a need that is 
regularly voiced within the OWL Full community - moreover, the response 
seemed to have crossed a few of the DL-ish constraints that Jim seems to 
be complaining about, and overall the balance of user-need against 
theoretical considerations seems to be weighing in favour of the user.

Received on Monday, 17 December 2007 15:21:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:16 UTC