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

Re: Punning and the "properties for classes" use case (from public-owl-dev)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:36:55 +0000
Message-ID: <472B5227.4080304@hpl.hp.com>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
CC: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, public-owl-wg@w3.org

Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> Ah well, since I am cited I will reply :)
> (I guess I should say "chair hat off")

(while I raise a couple of points that could be viewed as  procedural 
rather than substantive, I prefer you to keep your chair hat off while 
we have a discussion - as a complete aside, I have found my own 
preference for hat-wearing to have resulted in a rather negative 
reception in a variety of places).

> To summarize, I think that Michael accurately calculates the 
> entailments, that these are no new surprise, and that they are a 
> necessary consequence of exactly the articulated trade off. In summary, 
> I don't see anything new in this analysis.

I am glad we agree on the facts. I don't believe these issues are stated 
with as much clarity in the member submission docs, or elsewhere in the 
WG archive, hence my sense of 'newness'. I don't know how new these 
issues are to the WG as a whole, but I suspect most participants are not 
up to speed on all logically consequences (and non-consequences) of the 
member submission documents.

> That the current proposal does not satisfy all use cases is not 
> surprising. The alternative (no alternative provided) provides fewer. 
> I'd urge that in order to move the conversation forward, that some 
> concrete alternative proposals be put forward - these proposals should 
> at least offer increased functionality in the direction desired, should 
> not require new research, as that would be outside the mandate of the 
> charter, and provide for sound, complete, and decidable reasoning, to 
> provide for the user community that depends on these aspects of OWL DL.

By default, in a WG trying to provide a relatively small revision on an 
established specification, the alternative to making a change is to make 
no change.

This is HP's preferred option here: i.e. no change from OWL 1.0: punning 
prohibited in OWL DL (at least in the RDF form); when a uri is used, 
this takes you into OWL Full, and each URI denotes one thing.

I point to charter text in favour of this position:
For each new feature, if there is doubt or a perceived problem with 
respect to this issue, the guideline should be to not include the feature
The existing compatibility between OWL DL and OWL Full should be preserved

both of which seem to me to be directly applicable to punning, and to 
argue in favour of the HP preference.

Received on Friday, 2 November 2007 16:37:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:00 UTC