- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:05:32 +0000
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "'Web Ontology Language (OWL) Working Group WG'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 28 Nov 2007, at 10:18, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > Boris Motik wrote: > >> I would just like to point out that one of the design goals of OWL >> 1.1 DL was to clean up the >> specification and bring it closer to what OWL DL users and >> implementors are dealing with in practice. > > > This was very, very illuminating. > > Is there a list of all such design goals, where can I find it? > > === > > It seems to me that if this is motivating much of the group, and it > is echoed by say Ian: > > [[ > In fact the semantics of annotations in OWL DL and OWL full are > already different in practice: whatever the spec might say, all OWL > DL tools/systems that I am aware of treat annotations as being > completely void of semantics > ]] > > which suggests that rather than maintaining alignment between DL > and Full, maybe this group is about formalising the differences ... > > === > > Are we doing couple counselling or divorce? As I already pointed out (several times), we don't have a perfect alignment now, so allowing for some differences between OWL DL and OWL Full is nothing new. Fortunately, it is possible to have some differences without getting a divorce -- it may even be healthy :-). Our goal is to refine and extend OWL, and we should try to do this in a way that preserves the existing compatibility (such as it is) and tries to extend it to the new features where possible. This does not mean ruling out any feature for which perfect alignment proves to be difficult or impossible. As far as refinement is concerned, I think that it is reasonable to try to "clean up" the specification so that it better reflects practice as it has developed in the nearly four years since the OWL recommendation. Ian > > > Jeremy >
Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2007 15:05:53 UTC