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 11:15:25 +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.4.64.0804091112460.27195@frege.inf.tu-dresden.de>

I have added three slogans to the intro, trying to be careful about
not being controversial. Put on your flamethrowers. :)


On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Ivan Herman wrote:
> Carsten,
> and I understand very well that these things are complicated... And the error 
> I made on my example just shows how difficult that is:-(
> However... eventually we do need a kind of an 'elevator pitch', ie, a short, 
> clear, and not-too-detailed argument for end-users when and why they would 
> use one profile over the other.
> In some ways, we had that for  OWL-Full and DL: I know, it can be discussed 
> at nauseam, it is not precise, and tastes differ a lot, but I remembered Dan 
> Brickley saying something like:
> 	- Some application just need to express and interchange terms (with 
> possible scruffiness): OWL Full is fine
> 	- Some applications need rigor and complex term classification with a 
> guarantee offered by reasoning procedures; then OWL DL/Lite might be the good 
> choice
> which is good enough for the lambda SW application developer.
> Let us try to agree upon some of these...
> Ivan
> Carsten Lutz wrote:
>> 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 
>> *
> -- 
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

*      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 10:16:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:03 UTC