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

RE: ISSUE-120 (broken OWL 1 Full semantics): Fixing the inconsistency of OWL 1 Full will break perfect backwards compatibility

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:26:25 +0200
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A08BDA84@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "OWL Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>OWL Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>
>> ISSUE-120 (broken OWL 1 Full semantics): Fixing the inconsistency of
>OWL 1 Full will break perfect backwards compatibility
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/
>>
>
>
>I *think* this is editorial.
>Aren't these just minor typos in which the
>appropriate constraints on quantifiers or bounds on some of the
>variables were missing? And isn't there one obviously correct answer,
>and a number of obviously incorrect answers?

I would be fine with regarding this as an editorial error. But I would like to 
hear what the other WG participants have to say. In particular because, while 
I think that my repair is straight forward, the old and the new semantic 
conditions *look* different from each other:

  <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=FullSemanticsSequenceBased&oldid=5538>

Compare in section "Unions" the "Original main semantic condition" with the 
"Alternative main semantic condition". The former is the broken one, the 
latter the corrected one.

(And look, I did not provide the link to the /current/ Wiki page, but to a 
certain /version/ -- looks like the wiki supports Peter's proposal for OWL 
ontology versioning. :))

>There are several such errors in S&AS but none which I feel merits WG
>attention.

But an error which renders OWL Full inconsistent is at least spectacular 
enough to deserve a larger audience. ;-)

>There is no obligation to preserve backward compatibility with clear
>errors. [There are no *obvious* errors in OWL Full, because nothing is
>obvious in such a complex system - but there are errors that are clear
>once they are articulated]
>
>Michael,
>
>do you disagree with such an assessment - i.e. do I need to seriously
>understand this problem?
>
>Jeremy

/I/ agree. But let's see what others think. My idea of processing this issue 
was:

  1) Raise the issue yesterday.
  2) Open the issue on Wednesday.
  3) Tell in next week's agenda that this issue is planned to be closed.

This would suffice to get most people be aware of it. But if you think this is 
exaggerated, then we might not even open it on Wednesday...

Cheers,
Michael



Received on Monday, 21 April 2008 13:28:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 21 April 2008 13:28:10 GMT