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

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

From: Markus Krötzsch <mak@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 12:26:47 +0100
To: Bernardo Cuenca Grau <bcg@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200712051226.55062.mak@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
On Mittwoch, 28. November 2007, 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?)

In short: we agree with the above analysis. Feel free to drop DLP from the 
spec.

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.



-- 
Markus Krötzsch
Institut AIFB, Universät Karlsruhe (TH), 76128 Karlsruhe
phone +49 (0)721 608 7362        fax +49 (0)721 608 5998
mak@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de        www  http://korrekt.org

Received on Thursday, 6 December 2007 09:13:55 GMT

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