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, 19 Aug 2008 15:05:57 +0100
Message-Id: <D105C0FF-2603-488E-9F6A-D4A2789B7BC2@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, public-owl-wg Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>

On 18 Aug 2008, at 17:04, Jim Hendler wrote:

>
> Bijan,
>  It is absolutely true as you say that if it is in OWL Full then it  
> is in OWL Full (you said it better), but the key here is we're  
> talking about when the user explicitly wants to signal that it  
> should be OWL Full -- seems to me having a very specific thing,  
> easy to find, in this particlar (and probably rare) case would make  
> everyone's lives easier

I'm happy with sameAs sameAs sameAs myself. On the other hand, it's  
not a huge win as an OWL

> -- I don't understand the reluctance, I've looked at the discussion  
> in the f2f, and it seems to mainly concern general issues with  
> signaling intent, which I mostly agree with, the problem is this  
> one specific case - and why can't we just have some little piece of  
> syntax, which is only in OWL Full, which basically says "Don't  
> expect complete/sound reasoning if you use me with an OWL DL tool"  
> - seems to me we could do something more mnemonic that sameas  
> Sameas sameAs

Oh. A big problem is the problem with introducing any new syntax with  
"special meaning" but no defined meaning, people read too much in it.  
This was, in fact, my original thought but we immediately got off  
into the weeds. The nice thing about using a Full theorem is that it  
reuses the *existing* profile detection mechanisms so doesn't  
introduce a new conceptual catagory.

> -- and would make things easier for both implementors

I don't think so since they already need a detector. It's clearly  
additional (if minor) work.

> and users

I'm not sure. Either way requires some learning but using existing  
syntax doesn't require an additional conceptual category.

>  Guess what I'm trying to ask is what would be the downside?  I can  
> only see positive advantages as an implementor

Downside is that you have to recognize the new syntax (which is  
minor). But also, I think it would be a point of confusion that I'd  
end up explaining over and over again :) One really nice thing about  
the current solution is that it's much less likely to be (mis) used  
as a signaling of intent. I.e., "I *THINK* I may end up in OWL Full,  
so I'll say I'm OWL Full".  Since this *is* a corner case (e.g., you  
use it when you think owl:Thing should necessarily infinite) building  
a new mechanism when that mechanism isn't needed seems risky. Things  
added to the language should signal important stuff. Having to learn  
that there is this syntax but yet it only matters for a corner case  
is wasted cognitive effort.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2008 14:03:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 August 2008 14:03:35 GMT