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

Re: proposal - Fragments redux (unifying the threads under Issues 75-80)

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:28:53 +0000
Message-Id: <D18933F4-78E9-4BD7-803C-224887CAE4CA@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: Carsten Lutz <clu@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de>, Bernardo Cuenca Grau <bcg@cs.man.ac.uk>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>

On 29 Nov 2007, at 17:06, Jim Hendler wrote:

>
>
>
> On Nov 29, 2007, at 2:44, Carsten Lutz <clu@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de>  
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Jim Hendler wrote:
>>>
>>> well, it's not so much motivated by computational properties, see  
>>> out in the real world there's people who just implement fast  
>>> engines and don't worry so much about the details...
>>
>> Sorry to object, but IHMO this approach is precisely why the original
>> OWL Lite was broken. And I understood we wanted to fix this?! We  
>> should
>> at least understand the computational properties of the fragments we
>> are selecting.
>>
>
> IMO, its because we worried too much about theory that lite is broken

I can't let this go by without a correction. OWL Lite is broken  
because it was designed without *any* consideration of theory -- the  
design "methodology" was to haggle over what features to throw out  
and what to leave in, without any (rigorous) analysis of the  
(computational) consequences. There was even a last minute push to  
have oneOf be included on the grounds that it is a "must have"  
feature for many users; this was only given up when it was pointed  
out that the resulting language would have exactly the same worst  
case complexity as OWL DL.

Ian
Received on Friday, 30 November 2007 22:29:15 GMT

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