W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > December 2007

Re: ISSUE-76 (DLP): REPORTED: DLP

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:22:23 +0000
Message-Id: <4EA3C2F4-F494-4F26-BF7A-913BA75205A0@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Bernardo Cuenca Grau <bcg@cs.man.ac.uk>

As one of  the perpetrators of DLP, I don't have anything to say in  
it's defence ;-)

Ian


On 28 Nov 2007, at 18:29, Bernardo Cuenca Grau wrote:

>
> My understanding of the story of DLP is similar to Carsten's. The  
> goal of the work was to identify the ``intersection'' between logic  
> programming and OWL. Of course, the meaning of ``intersection'' has  
> to be taken carefully since, for instance, Logic Programming and  
> OWL adopt different semantics.
>
> As it happens with other fragments, like DL-Lite, there are many  
> flavors of DLP. Even more, if one calls DLP any Horn-description  
> logic, then HORN-SHIQ could also be seen as a variant of DLP. I  
> must confess that the selection of the particular flavor of DLP  
> included in the document was rather arbitrary and was taken from a  
> set of papers about DLP published by the Karlsruhe people. I  
> wouldn't be opposed to removing DLP and keeping Horn-SHIQ, since I  
> am also not aware of non-toy ontology that belongs to the version  
> of DLP in the document, but not to Horn-SHIQ. I expect that the  
> people in Karlsruhe may have something to say about this issue  
> (Markus?)
>
> Bernardo
>
> OWL Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> ISSUE-76 (DLP): REPORTED: DLP
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/
>>
>> Raised by: Bijan Parsia
>> On product:
>> (On behalf of Carsten Lutz.)
>>
>> I would like to raise the question whether we really want DLP in the
>> document. In my understanding, the history of DLP is as follows:
>>
>> - the origin was an academic exercise: to understand what one gets
>>   when taking the common part of logic programming and OWL
>>
>> - the answer was (in my very personal opinion; never mind): nothing
>>   very useful
>>
>> - ontologies written in DLP have never shown up (I am happy to
>>   stand corrected)
>>
>> - it was superceeded by Horn-SHIQ of which it is fragment (right?),
>>   and which is also in the document (where it is not really visible
>>   that DLP is a fragment of Horn-SHIQ).
>>
>> I can see that the connection between logic programming and OWL is
>> important, for a number of reasons. Still, I feel that DLP is an odd
>> fragment and that we would do better to drop it. When discussing
>> Horn-SHIQ, we could still mention that the intersection of logic
>> programming and OWL is contained in it.
>>
>> If anybody wants to make a case for DLP, go ahead. I only want to
>> avoid that we include fragments that nobody really supports.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Sunday, 2 December 2007 15:22:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:29 GMT