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
]]
and
[[
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.

Jeremy
Received on Friday, 2 November 2007 16:37:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:27 GMT