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

Re: ISSUE-111 Proposal to Resolve

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 08:41:20 +0100
Message-Id: <147076DE-E9B9-419D-8BEA-4225E53561C3@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>, Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, public-owl-wg Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>

On Aug 12, 2008, at 8:02 AM, Rinke Hoekstra wrote:

> 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.

In particular, it was for corner cases where the graph has detectably  
different semantics under Full but is syntactically legal OWL DL. A  
boring example is owl:Thing subClassOf [oneOf a] (i.e., a finite OWL  
thing).

> On 8 aug 2008, at 18:33, Jim Hendler wrote:
[snip...see Rinke's reply]

>> 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"?

We went down this path (started by me) but it was very problematic  
and confusing (e.g., what do you do when there are "conflicting"  
intendedUse triples).

The trivial triple solution fits in with current techniques for  
distinguishing fragments (i.e., by syntactic analysis). So covers  
this (minor) case in a clean way.

(Some people, like Sandro, consider it a serious bug that there can  
be a single graph with divergent entailments...this gives them a way,  
without opening any cans of worms, to do that.)

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2008 07:42:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 12 August 2008 07:42:04 GMT