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

Some editorial comments (Re: ISSUE-131: Preview of "unification")

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:12:44 +0200
Message-ID: <48B2AFCC.70804@w3.org>
To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
CC: public-owl-wg Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hi Ian,

first of all: thank you!

I have some editorial issues/questions/comments on the profile document.
I may also have some more content questions at some point, but I thought
it would be better to get the editorial comments out of the way... So
here they are.

- In the definition of OWL 2 EL, you refer to "satisfiability,
subsumption, classification, and instance checking" as being polynomial.
On the other hand, the introduction refers to "consistency,
classification, instance checking, and conjunctive query" as the
reasoning tasks used to describe the profiles. I think that the
introduction should describe all of those. Having said that: aren't
'satisfiability' and 'consistency' the same, or am I missing the point?

- In EL, bulleted item under 'The following features...', 2nd item,
there seem to be an extra ')' in the middle and an extra one at the end, too

- Section 3, introduction on QL, second paragraph refers to DL-Lite and
not QL, which is a bit out of the blue here (I suspect this is a
leftover). Actually, I wonder whether that paragraph should stay at all.

- Whereas the start up section of EL referred to the various reasoning
problems for which EL is well suited for, this is not so explicitly
stated for QL. I think it would be good to have a similar
characterization of QL, too; if _all_ reasoning problems are in
LOGSPACE, then it should be said explicitly.

- Section 4, introducing OWL RL, I actually have the same comment as
before: it may be useful to be able to characterize (at least partially)
the profile with the reasoning problems. For example, isn't it correct
that the OWL 2 RL/RDF rules are not complete vs. classification but they
are vs. conjuctive query and instance checking, for example?

(I think the reference to these reasoning tasks is a very good way of
comparing the various profiles, hence these remarks...)

- I do not want to reopen the profile naming discussion too much, but:-(
Is it necessary to add the '2' to all profiles? I would have thought
that 'OWL QL', 'OWL RL', etc, would be o.k. It would also make the rule
representation a bit shorter: 'OWL RL/RDF' instead of 'OWL 2 RL/RDF'

I guess that is for the moment after a first read through the text...



Ian Horrocks wrote:
> We (Alan and I) agreed that it would help to clarify this issue and to
> inform our discussion on Wednesday if the Profiles document [1] were
> updated to reflect the proposed "unification". This has now been done.
> It should be read in conjunction with the (draft) conformance
> definitions [2].
> Regards,
> Ian
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Profiles
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Conformance


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 Monday, 25 August 2008 13:13:14 UTC

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