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

Re: Agenda requests: Issues we can decide?

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 22:14:26 +0000
Message-Id: <0153346F-E677-4459-BF14-D5D70121DD89@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "Web Ontology Language (OWL) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>

On Nov 6, 2007, at 9:40 PM, Jim Hendler wrote:

> Bijan, can you let us know your reasons for these, esp number 8- if  
> we can do keys, couldnt we do this by same mechanism?
sure
>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/2 (easy yes)

AllDisjoint not being in the RDF mapping seems pretty clearly a bug.  
What's the advantage of syntatic sugar that doesn't appear in the  
only canonical exchange syntax?

>>    http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/8 (easy no)

Putting data properties in property chains is like having *general*  
(not "easy") keys. That is you have to do class description level  
reasoning and we don't yet know how to do it.

DL Safe SWRL rules can give you such chains with arbitrary variable  
patterns (indeed, this is how we do easykeys):
	http://code.google.com/p/owl1-1/wiki/EasyKeyProposal

For an understanding of the difference between dl safe swrl rules and  
aribtrary swrl rules, see my blog post series:
	http://clarkparsia.com/weblog/category/semweb/rules/swrl/

Short answer...a lot of things are much easier if you restrict  
yourself to operating on the explicit data.

(I'm hoping that, in coordination with the rif, if we make enough  
progress, we can produce a spec for a DL Safe swrl rule extension to  
OWL, but that's a future thing.)

>>    http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/15 (easy yes)

I believe OWL 1.0 ontologies could lack a URI, so this seems to be a  
big new restriction that's both unwarranted and causing user problems
	http://www.w3.org/mid/200711051043.51046.matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2007 22:38:53 GMT

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