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

Re: Fragments - specific proposal

From: Carsten Lutz <clu@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:08:46 +0100 (CET)
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0712101326090.3505@frege.inf.tu-dresden.de>

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007, Jim Hendler wrote:
>
> so make a counter proposal - what do you want in it?  I already said that if 
> we could express EL++ in a way that was easily understood I'd be willing to 
> explore that being OWL Light

I am not sure I understand what you mean. In fact, your wiki page on
RDFS 3.0 has almost exactly the same kind and amount of information
that Bernardo's "tractable fragments" doc has on EL++. Additionally,
there are pointers to the literature. Could you please explain what
kind of information would allow you to understand EL++ better? I am
happy to provide more information (and I *will* start an EL++ wiki
page, good idea), but frankly I am not sure at all what you would like
to have.

> - my proposal is that we DESIGN the fragment, 
> not necessarily pick an existing one.

Yes and no. Fragments like EL++ and DL-Lite received years (and a lot
of manpower) of research. I don't think that we can do this in a 
standardization group for completely new fragments---though individual
members may of course decide to inverst the time and efforts to do it.
On the other hand, this doesn't mean that we have to use fragments as
is. We can make minor adjustments to make them more suitable for us,
as long as we understand the ramifications.

>  But if you want something else, I 
> think it is incumbent on you to make clear what your motivations are -- I did 
> so on the fragments page on the WIki,

I did so in several previous mails?!?

> and continue to invite you and anyone 
> else interested to outline other proposals -- it's easy to argue against 
> things, let us know what you are arguing for and why.

Again: did that already in previous mails. But will additionally open
a wiki page.

> Carsten - I think you and I use "widely" at different orders of magnitude, 
> but that said, if EL++ could be defined cleanly in terms that non-logicians 
> could understand

I had believed that the functional syntax used in the OWL docs is what
non-logicians can understand.  It is in this syntax that Bernardo
describes EL++. It makes me worried if this syntax is considered not
understandable since this is what is used in the main documents of
this working group... What would you prefer?

greetings,
 		Carsten

--
*      Carsten Lutz, Institut f"ur Theoretische Informatik, TU Dresden       *
*     Office phone:++49 351 46339171   mailto:lutz@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de     *
Received on Monday, 10 December 2007 13:08:59 GMT

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