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

Re: ISSUE-111 Proposal to Resolve

From: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:02:56 +0200
Cc: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, public-owl-wg Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <AE831F85-A125-4A08-AE80-157C1C493786@uva.nl>
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>

Hi Jim,

During the call, our assumption was that this case would be extremely  
rare, and thus doesn't warrant adding a new intendedUse/ 
intendedProfile ontology property. And regarding your point 1), we  
expected the only people who wanted to use this to be DL-ies who  
specifically wanted to signal the Fullness of the ontology. As you  
say, someone more Full-minded will usually not consider the DL case,  
and we neither intend to bother *all* Full users nor *all* DL users.  
Just the crossover where someone who *cares* can signal Fullness.


On 8 aug 2008, at 18:33, Jim Hendler wrote:
> Having left the WG, I seem to still be being pulled in a lot by side  
> emails, so let me state, as RPI AC rep, that we don't like this  
> solution.  I see two problems
> 1 - it seems to us that people who use DL are more likely to  
> understand the
> difference between DL and Full than those who are just using the  
> vocabulary, so the chances of this triple being included seem very  
> low - thus, we'd prefer to see someone who understands that they  
> want to be only DL should have to do something to signal that
> 2 - by this decision, if a user accidently does something to make  
> their ontology OWL Full, they will be signaling they only want to be  
> in Full (since it says "should include a triple that takes the  
> ontology out of OWL DL") -- if the meaning is that we want users to  
> use only this specific triple, then it seems to me we should do  
> something more obvious, like putting in some semantics free  
> definition that expresses intent -- i.e. instead of "sameAs sameAs  
> sameAs" wouldn't it be a lot smarter for the document to include "[]  
> intendedUse OWL-Full"?
> In fact, given these two factors, it seems like we should either  
> have explicit means for signaling semantics when intended, or no  
> specified way, meaning tools have their choice.
>  -JH
> AC Rep, RPI
> On Aug 8, 2008, at 11:31 AM, Ian Horrocks wrote:
>> As per discussions and strawpolls at the Boston F2F [1] and our  
>> most recent telecon [2], I propose that we close this issue by  
>> adding to the spec the advice that users wanting to ensure that  
>> their ontology is interpreted *only* as OWL Full should include a  
>> triple that takes the ontology out of OWL DL, namely:
>> sameAs sameAs sameAs .
>> Regards,
>> Ian
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-07-28#Strawpoll_on_signaling_semantics
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-08-06#Strawpoll_on_resolving_issue__2d_111
> "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research,  
> would it?." - Albert Einstein
> Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
> Tetherless World Constellation Chair
> Computer Science Dept
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180

Drs. Rinke Hoekstra

Email: hoekstra@uva.nl    Skype:  rinkehoekstra
Phone: +31-20-5253499     Fax:   +31-20-5253495
Web:   http://www.leibnizcenter.org/users/rinke

Leibniz Center for Law,          Faculty of Law
University of Amsterdam,            PO Box 1030
1000 BA  Amsterdam,             The Netherlands
Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2008 07:03:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:06 UTC