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

Re: Profiles intro

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 21:33:39 +0100
Message-Id: <F1F82917-B964-4786-90EE-91F1D69D272C@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, Carsten Lutz <clu@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, Alan Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
To: "Deborah L. McGuinness" <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>

On 9 Apr 2008, at 20:00, Deborah L. McGuinness wrote:

> just to add some support to this thread
> 1 - i am strongly supportive of this need for having simple  
> understandable descriptions of at least one kind of user we believe  
> should use each fragment.
> 2 - on the 3 points below, if i had 2 and 3 below, i would use them  
> right away.

I.e., if you had a scalable system, that would drive your choice here :)

> my restatement of what i would use today would be:
> 2a Creating inference graphs from RDF data by performing rule-based  
> forward chaining thus making information that is implicit in the  
> rdf explicit in the rdf graph.

I don't know why this is a desiderata for *any* user. It seems very  
implementation oriented to me.

> 3a  Efficiently querying the resulting inference RDF graph with  
> standard web query languages including SPARQL.

But this specifies an implementation technique. What do you care if  
your sparql queries are evaluated by computing a bigger rdf graph  
instead of some other technique as long as you get the same answers  
for acceptable resource consumption?

In other words, I thought the missing bit wasn't about the  
computational properties (Carsten's did a good job), it's about the  
"fit" of the expressivity. I agree that this is a hard think to  
describe. So, one (sorta false and not super *duper* useful)  
description of this sort is that EL++ is designed for TBox heavy,  
structurally complex ontologies (such as biomedical ones) and DL-Lite  
can handle conceptual models and thus relational database federation.

(Note that there's nothing wrong with being concerned with performance!)

Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2008 20:31:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:04 UTC