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

Re: Punning discussion

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:04:38 +0000
Message-ID: <47974976.7050303@hpl.hp.com>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
CC: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

I note the agenda item points to various issues, all three of them were 
raised by me, reflecting concerns of several HP colleagues.

I will try and reply quickly to some of the prior discussion of those 

A further relevant issue is ISSUE-68, since the nonmonotonic mapping 
arises in dealing with excessive vocab (ISSUE-65) that addressess the 
role punning ISSUE-17.


Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> Hi folks,
> I was talking with Ian about some discussion points and questions to 
> help structure the conversation we will have on punning. We came up with 
> the following:
> 1) Consider the punning issue to be divided into two kinds of punning. 
> The first kind adds instance punning against classes and properties. In 
> some sense this is the most easily understood kind of punning and those 
> for which there are obvious use cases. The second kind are the other 
> punning pairs - class/property, objectproperty/dataproperty. Is it worth 
> considering these separately? Do we have any kind of consensus that one 
> or both are desirable/useful?
> 2) Two cited cases for punning are Metamodeling and being able to have 
> real properties on classes/properties. But what exactly do people 
> consider Metamodeling, and does the punning proposal address these 
> cases. As an example, it does not address the cases on Conrad's 
> Metamodeling page because we don't plan to support modification of owl 
> syntax.
> 3) From a technical point of view, how would dropping some or all of 
> punning help? To what extent is the amount of new vocabulary dependent 
> on our choice of punning? How does punning effect OWL Full?
> 4) From a communication/understandability/documentation point of view, 
> how would our choices effect the communities that we want to use OWL. 
> What is the extra documentation needed to explain punning? How much 
> would eliminating or reducing punning help? What's the appropriate 
> balance of cost/benefit?
> 5) Other aspects of the design interact with punning, particularly the 
> introduction of "Strong typing" that makes it easier to parse and 
> process OWL.  As we discuss the various costs/benefits, it will be 
> helpful to distinguish which costs and benefits are associated with each 
> feature, as they are, to some extent, separable.
> Looking forward to the discussion,
> Regards,
> Alan
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 14:05:10 UTC

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