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

Re: completeness

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:00:05 -0500
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, gstoil@image.ece.ntua.gr, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <D147F255-9E57-4CCE-9029-C9A07E54A8BA@cs.rpi.edu>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
I personally have no problem with saying "if you mess with the OWL  
vocabulary, you are on your own" (or whatever polite way we say Don't)  
-- I think in OWL 1.0 we wasted a lot of time worrying about border  
cases of this kind, and in practice it is rarely done - most people  
understand that if you mess with the reserved vocabularies in most  
languages you get screwed, and I haven't seen anyone demanding the  
ability to do - it is great fun to come up with cases that do all  
sorts of neat things and this is no different for the fragment than  
for the whole language - for example owl:Thing owl:sameAs owl:Nothing  
made for some neat results in (previous versions of) Pellet.

On Feb 28, 2008, at 2:58 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> On Feb 28, 2008, at 6:10 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> Note: I have not thought much about the pD* treatment of owl:sameAs  
>> as
>> it relates to messing with the OWL vocabulary.
> We have some choices in defining this fragment. OWLPrime advocates:  
> Do you really want to be able to mess with the OWL vocabulary,  
> considering that it opens up all sorts of possibilities for trouble?
> -Alan

"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
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2008 22:00:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:02 UTC