W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: Profiles intro

From: Carsten Lutz <clu@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 10:52:11 +0200 (CEST)
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0804091040570.12547@frege.inf.tu-dresden.de>

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Ivan Herman wrote:
>
> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> 
>> It is really nice (as far as I'm concerned), but I think we can anticipate 
>> some negative comment about the emphasis on the "tractability" POV (e.g., 
>> from Jim Hendler). And, after all, computational efficiency is a necessary, 
>> not sufficient, condition for inclusion. 
>
> +1. No, +100...:-)
>
> What I am looking for are statements that make it clear in which 
> circumstances I would choose one profile over the other (even if I have no 
> idea of the implementation details, nor do I want to deal with those). The 
> fact that it can be implemented in polynomial time or whatever is only one 
> (albeit important) aspect.

I agree and certainly don't consider the intro finished. The purpose
of my changes was only to have an intro that can be published at the
end of this week, and I think the current one can. (the action on me
was to put the explanations of the three fragments that I had in my
OWLED slides, and I did even more than that).

An issue with the other aspects of fragments is that they are difficult
to formulate without raising controversy. Let's take your example:

> I have heard arguments that say "if your ontology 
> has a simple structure, but have a large abox, then use DL-Lite";

I am not totally happy with this formulation, and I guess Zhe is even
less so:

- I am uncomfortable with the "ontology has a simple structure part",
   because EL++ is also targeted at ontologies of a simple structure and
   can also handle ABoxes, whereas I conceive DL-Lite as a constraint
   language rather than an ontology language.

- I suppose Zhe won't like the "large ABox" part, because ontologies
   with a simple structure and large data is precisely what OWL-R is
   also made for.

My aim here is not to discuss these issues, but only to point out that
it may by hard to find general rules of the kind that you imagine.

> I could imagine that a more detailed argumentation should (probably must...) 
> be given in more details in the primer, but some of these should be added, I 
> believe, in the profile document, too.

I agree, but we have to be careful.

greetings,
 		Carsten

--
*      Carsten Lutz, Institut f"ur Theoretische Informatik, TU Dresden       *
*     Office phone:++49 351 46339171   mailto:lutz@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de     *
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2008 08:52:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 April 2008 08:52:48 GMT