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

RE: A proposal for the fragments document

From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 12:40:54 -0000
To: "'Ivan Herman'" <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004e01c87ebe$271ce430$7212a8c0@wolf>

Hello Ivan,

Thanks for these comments. My answers are inline.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ivan Herman
> Sent: 05 March 2008 10:17
> To: Boris Motik
> Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: A proposal for the fragments document
> 
> Boris, Bernardo,
> 
> thanks!
> 
> Some minor (and editorial) comments:
> 
> 1. In the intro on DL-Lite, you say:
> 
> "it is, therefore, a proper super-set of the RDFS fragment of OWL 1.1 DL."
> 
> I have two problems with this
> 
> - this document may become, eventually, the official W3C document, we
> should not have a reference to any 'other' OWL1.1, as those will not
> become part of a recommendation (maybe a note).
> 
> - even if we decide to use the original submission for, eg, a note, I
> would personally prefer not to use the name 'RDFS' for that fragment.
> The acronym RDFS is used for RDF Schemas as defined in the 2004
> recommendation; it is a misnomer to use it for a fragment (I did not
> care about it for the submission, but it becomes another matter if part
> of an official W3C document produced by this group...
> 

The intention here was not to refer to the RDFS fragment from the member submission; rather, we wanted to say that DL-lite captures
the intersection between RDFS and OWL 1.1 DL. Would that be any better? 

> 2. In the spec of EL++ and DL-Lite 'facts' is listed as features
> provided by EL++. Eg, I can use SameIndividual or, in RDF speak:-)
> owl:sameAs. This is not present in the OWL-R DL spec; actually, there is
> no (handy) list of feature overview. It took me a certain time (and
> looking at the OWL-R Full version) to find the owl:sameAs is indeed
> usable (and this is probably by far the most widely used owl term used
> out there these days...).
> 
> I guess this is really editorial: the description of OWL-R DL should
> follow the same pattern as the other two...
> 

In the member submission, each fragment was defined in full, by repeating all the supported productions of the language. This turned
out to be quite error-prone (the document did contain some omissions), and it also resulted in a cluttered definition.

Therefore, in this new document we deliberately chose to define each fragment as a "diff" to the original spec. In other words,
everything that we didn't redefine applies as usual.

Now I fully understand that this might result in a slightly inaccessible spec. We can address this drawback in two (nor necessarily
disjoint) ways:

- We can expand the overview section for each fragment and be more explicit and precise about what is and what is not supported.

- We can fall back to the original style of definition and repeat all the "unchanged" productions.

Depending on what the group deems more suitable, we can adopt either (or both) approaches. We should be able to modify the documents
without much ado.

> 3. In the fragment complexity table you refer to OWL DL in the top row.
> Is that OWL1.1 DL or the 'old' DL? I am a bit confused with all the
> acronyms:-(
> 

Yes, this was meant to be OWL 1.0 DL. In fact, the table should also contain a row for OWL 1.1 DL. I'll add them in a bit.

Thanks again for the comments; I really appreciate them.

Regards,

	Boris

> Ivan
> 
> 
> 
> Ivan
> 
> Boris Motik wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > In the past couple of days Bernardo and I have come up with a proposal document for the OWL
> fragments story [1] and we thought that
> > it would be useful to send it around before tomorrow's discussion. Let us know how you feel about
> it.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Boris & Bernardo
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Fragments_Proposal
> >
> >
> >
> 
> --
> 
> 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 Wednesday, 5 March 2008 12:41:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 5 March 2008 12:41:59 GMT