W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > August 2009

Re: Explain profile acronyms

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 09:20:42 -0400
Cc: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>, Pascal Hitzler <hitzler@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <4FB1AF7A-E75E-4949-B3A3-B2FF182C909A@cs.rpi.edu>
To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
>>>>>> Note that each of the profiles is a (strict)  syntactic subset  
>>>>>> of OWL DL, but none of the profiles is a subset of  another

While the above is technically correct,  I think that some people  
would miss the fact that "syntactic" subsets of OWL 2  DL is different  
than the fact that you must use the DL restrictions (esp for RL) - so  
I'd suggest one of the following three rewordings:

Note that each of the profiles is a (strict) syntactic subset of OWL  
2's syntax, but none of the profiles is a subset of each other  [[i.e.  
since syntactically OWL DL and OWL Full are same thing, why bring up  
the issue]]


Note that each of the profiles is a (strict) syntactic subset of OWL 2  
DL and none of the profiles is a subset of another.  We note that OWL  
RL is expected to be used primarily with OWL Full semantics, the  
others with OWL DL. [[which is clear, but I suspect controversial]]


just say

None of these profiles is a subset of another [[and avoid the whole  

I'm sorry, but I do consider the quoted line above to a problem, and  
one I cannot ignore....
   -Jim H.

On Aug 4, 2009, at 6:42 AM, Ian Horrocks wrote:

> This seems like a good compromise.
> I have made the relevant changes. The diff is:
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Profiles&diff=25048&oldid=24645
> Regards,
> Ian
> On 4 Aug 2009, at 10:59, Uli Sattler wrote:
>> On 3 Aug 2009, at 21:51, Pascal Hitzler wrote:
>>> I would really stick to the real/historic explanation (EL family).
>> we could also add "which is called EL because it is a *l*anguage  
>> (or *l*logic) that only provides *e*xistential quantification of  
>> variables."? Cheers, Uli
>>> I understand that it's not directly helpful, but at least it  
>>> becomes clear that there is some reason to it - and in case  
>>> somebody wants to read up on it on the DL literature, he's not  
>>> lost in the DL acronyms ...
>>> In fact I'll add this to the primer as soon as the wiki is  
>>> accessible again (it currently seems to be down...)
>>> Pascal.
>>> Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>>>> I certainly see no problem with adding some minor explanatory text
>>>>> along these lines.
>>>> It seems good to me, too, except for the EL explanation.  The  
>>>> reference
>>>> to EL++ doesn't help anyone.  (If you know about EL++, you don't  
>>>> need
>>>> the explanation; if you don't know about EL++, then knowing the
>>>> association doesn't help.)
>>>> So where does the "E" come from?  I guess it's from "Existential
>>>> Restrictions"...  That doesn't help very much here.  Maybe we can
>>>> propose a mnemonic?  "Extensive", "Efficient", "Easy",  
>>>> "Economical",
>>>> "Enormous", "Elephantine"...  :-)
>>>> Maybe something like:
>>>>  - The EL profile was orginally named for its use of Existential
>>>>    restrictions, but for a mnemonic, we note that it supports
>>>>    Efficient reasoning, even with Enormous ontologies.
>>>> ... or something like that.
>>>>    -- Sandro
>>>>> From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
>>>>> Subject: Re: Explain profile acronyms
>>>>> Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 11:40:57 -0500
>>>>>> IMHO this is a not completely unreasonable request. I would  
>>>>>> propose  to respond by adding to the Introduction of Profiles:
>>>>>> * brief explanations of the acronyms, namely:
>>>>>>  - The EL acronym reflects the profile's basis in the EL family  
>>>>>> of  description logics [EL++].
>>>>>>  - The QL acronym reflects the fact that query answering in  
>>>>>> this  profile can implemented by rewriting queries into a  
>>>>>> standard  relational Query Language.
>>>>>>  - The RL acronym reflects the fact that reasoning in this  
>>>>>> profile  can be implemented using a standard Rule Language.
>>>>>> * the statement "Note that each of the profiles is a (strict)   
>>>>>> syntactic subset of OWL DL, but none of the profiles is a  
>>>>>> subset of  another."
>>>>>> Comments and/or other suggestions?
>>>>>> Ian
>>>>>>> From: Gioele Barabucci <barabucc@cs.unibo.it>
>>>>>>> Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:54:08 +0200
>>>>>>> To: public-owl-comments@w3.org
>>>>>>> Message-ID: <20090720125407.GA32507@cs.unibo.it>
>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>> could you please document the meaning of the EL, QL and DL  
>>>>>>> acronyms in
>>>>>>> the overview section of owl2-profiles and other OWL 2 documents?
>>>>>>> Also, could you explicitly state whether an OWL 2 profile is a  
>>>>>>> strict
>>>>>>> subset of another?
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> Gioele Barabucci <barabucc@cs.unibo.it>
>>> -- 
>>> PD Dr. Pascal Hitzler
>>> pascal@pascal-hitzler.de   http://www.pascal-hitzler.de
>>> Semantic Web Textbook: http://www.semantic-web-book.org

We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things,  
not because they are easy, but because they are hard - John F.  
Kennedy, Sept 12, 1962

Prof James Hendler								http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
Tetherless World Constellation Chair & Asst Dean of IT and Web Science
Computer and Cognitive Science Depts
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180     	@jahendler, twitter
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 13:21:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:13 UTC