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

Re: intendedProfile (proposal for ISSUE-111)

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 20:43:17 +0100
Message-Id: <3EBA09DC-2FEE-4899-8DDE-1933F1EF8E99@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: "Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>

On 21 May 2008, at 20:29, Boris Motik wrote:
[snip intended consequence relation stuff]

That works for me.

> I do agree that, from a practical point of view, one might want to  
> stipulate that an ontology has been designed as, say, an EL++
> ontology. We have two possibilities for handling this:
> - We might recognize that this is an orthogonal concern to the  
> choice of the consequence relation. Therefore, we might add a
> different annotation property called, say, owl:syntacticFragment.
> - We might introduce owl:EL++, owl:DL-Lite, and owl:OWL-R-DL, but  
> say that they are, from the point of view of the consequence
> relation, equivalent to owl:DL. We should then say that we merged  
> the actually orthogonal concerns of selecting the consequence
> relation and providing hints into one construct due to practical  
> reasons.

Either of these is fine with me, so is deferring that. It'd be  
interesting to get some wider feedback. One way to do that is to put  
a design in the spec and make it prominent. Another is to ask around :)

Received on Wednesday, 21 May 2008 19:41:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:04 UTC