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

Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-55

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:47:47 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20071216.104747.155824548.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: alanruttenberg@gmail.com
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org, hendler@cs.rpi.edu

It appears to me that ISSUE-55 asks for a solution that eliminates the
differences between rdfs:Class and owl:Class, or a statement as to why
this is not a good idea.  There have already been statements that say
why rdfs:Class and owl:Class are different.

A WG note providing best practices in ontology "repair" by tools (which
could include lots of other "repairs", including, perhaps repairs in OWL
Full ontologies) would be a solution to a different problem, and thus, I
think, should be a different issue.

peter



From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-55
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 16:07:51 -0500

> Hi Peter,
> 
> I think this one is relevant in the context of the straw poll at the  
> workshop, in which there was unanimous support for us looking at how  
> to have more RDF usable within OWL tools. I took that as interest in,  
> e.g.  possibly having a working group note that explicitly listed a  
> set of recommended repairs.
> 
> In the context of this interest, the issue of rdfs:Class and  
> owl:Class is certainly relevent, though perhaps not as phrased in  
> this issue.
> 
> I could see closing this issue and opening a new one, or amending the  
> current one to reflect the discussion at the meeting. Do you have a  
> preference as to which way we should do this?
> 
> -Alan
> 
> On Dec 13, 2007, at 4:23 PM, Jim Hendler wrote:
> 
> > CLosing an issue should include some text about how the issue has  
> > been closed - i.e. the resolution - I'd be willing to close this  
> > (actually Postpone would be my preference) when we have a proposed  
> > closing text.  As we've seen, this one is important and often asked  
> > - so we need to have something explicit and definitive that we can  
> > point people to.
> >
> >
> > On Dec 13, 2007, at 11:16 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> This issue asks to reconsider the distinction between owl:Class and
> >> rdfs:Class.
> >>
> >> There have already been several emails, including
> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Nov/0258.html
> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Nov/0263.html
> >> that explain why merging owl:Class and rdfs:Class makes changes to
> >> ontologies and thus is not something that is suitable for OWL.
> >>
> >> The current situation is that several tools can perform this repair,
> >> although they do not guarantee that the semantics of the ontology is
> >> unchanged.
> >>
> >> I believe that there has been adequate discussion and that the  
> >> issue can
> >> be closed.
> >>
> >> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> >> Bell Labs Research
> >>
> >
> > "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research,  
> > would it?." - Albert Einstein
> >
> > Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
> > Tetherless World Constellation Chair
> > Computer Science Dept
> > Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180
Received on Sunday, 16 December 2007 16:12:52 GMT

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