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

Re: ACTION-54 definition of OWLPrime (RDFS 3.0)

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:52:02 -0500
Message-Id: <31DE8674-77D7-4503-BD47-7667AE4433DC@cs.rpi.edu>
Cc: "OWL Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>

On Jan 24, 2008, at 10:29 AM, Michael Schneider wrote:

> Hi Jim!
> Just two questions for my understanding please:
> Jim Hendler wrote:
>> Alan - this seems like a good step forward -My hope, through,
>> is we'd do something that makes the DLP (extended as you
>> suggest) be the DL version, and that it would be clear that
>> the same restricted vocabulary set is a named fragment of OWL
>> Full (i.e whatever name we assign to this, we would have FragX
>> DL and FragX Full?) -
> Do you say by this that the WG should produce a "Full" (i.e RDF  
> compatible) version for /each/ of the proposed tractable DL- 
> fragments, or only for OWLPrime (or what will then be closest to it  
> in the end)?

we have not yet discussed the other fragments - I'm on record as  
saying I don't think we should move them to the rec track.  Any that  
we do, I will certainly expect to understand the user community  
requesting it, and either a Full version or a strong explanation of  
why it isn't needed - note that I believe our charter demands this,  
although some others think it can be interpreted much more narrowly.

>> I believe we made a mistake in the OWL
>> 1.0 group in not having a "OWL F-LITE," and I'd hate to see
>> that mistake propagated again.
> By "OWL F-LITE" wrt OWL-1.0: Do you mean an RDF compatible version  
> of OWL-Lite?

yes - it was proposed near the end of the group that we should simply  
have the vocabulary equivalent of OWL Lite with the RDF semantics  
(i.e. like Full)

Note, also, that if we decide not to support the previous OWL Lite  
(perhaps extended with OWL 1.1 constructs as appropriate), it would  
indeed be a major backward compatibility issue - and I think we would  
need extremely good arguments to do that -- there are companies/ 
organizations that have tools claiming to support OWL Lite, and thus  
if we change that, we'll have to have a very good reason.  I don't  
happen to like OWL Lite  very much, but removing something that  
people are marketing would be a pretty good way to be sure that we  
won't get through PR without AC objections, so note that we cannot  
easily drop it with little risk.

> Cheers,
> Michael
> --
> Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
> FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik Karlsruhe
> Abtl. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
> Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
> Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
> Email: Michael.Schneider@fzi.de
> Web  : http://www.fzi.de/ipe/eng/mitarbeiter.php?id=555
> FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
> Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
> Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
> Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
> Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe
> Vorstand: Rüdiger Dillmann, Michael Flor, Jivka Ovtcharova, Rudi  
> Studer
> Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus

"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 Friday, 25 January 2008 01:52:37 UTC

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