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

Re: First crack at profiles in primer (another comment)

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 12:12:23 +0200
Message-ID: <48008B07.9040800@w3.org>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Bijan,

an additional comment, related to what I wrote in my previous mail on DL 
Lite vs OWL-R; I wonder whether a slightly different organization would 
not help:


- Intro
- EL++
- Some title here (simple profile or sg)
	- DL Lite
	- OWL-R
- OWL 1 species


What I mean is: I see quite a lot of things that are identical in DL 
Lite and OWL-R, both in the possible users and in some of the 
characteristic features. Factoring out those commonalities might be 
helpful, and then we could have one section on DL Lite, emphasizing its 
connection to the DB world, and OWL-R, emphasizing its rule aspect.

What do you think?

Ivan

Bijan Parsia wrote:
> 
> Following the vigorous discussion, and even though I have no action here 
> :), I thought I'd try my hand at drafting some text about profiles 
> intended, I think, for the primer. The result is here:
>     http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Profile_Explanations
> 
> (Separated, since I don't want to touch the primer while sandro is 
> getting us to pub. Also, I guess we could drop it into the Profiles doc.)
> 
> It's still fairly preliminary, esp. the descriptions of the individual 
> subsetting profiles. I have some "it's more rdfish" text in the OWL-R 
> section, in spite of the dangers, partially because I couldn't think of 
> anything else at the moment :) So don't shoot me <cough> Ivan  </cough>. ;)
> 
> I suspect that we'll have some sort of cheat sheets for the profiles as 
> well.
> 
> I'm a bit concerned about overloading primer readers with too much 
> detail about the profiles. But I'd also like the profiles document to be 
> very spec like and implementor oriented. One possibility is to break 
> this discussion out into a separate document, either in the WG or in the 
> OWLED Education task force.
> 
> One advantage of moving it out of the WG is that being controversial is 
> rather less damaging. An advantage of moving it out of the primer is 
> that we can include a lot more detail.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
> 

-- 

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


Received on Saturday, 12 April 2008 10:12:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 12 April 2008 10:12:54 GMT