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

Re: Explain profile acronyms

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 22:46:41 +0100
Message-Id: <D30C0552-9823-4982-BC61-13017AB58DC3@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>, 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
To: Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>
IMHO this would be a larger and more controversial change than we  
should be making at this stage.

I think that the best solution is the last one suggested by Jim -- to  
simply say that "none of these profiles is a subset of another". I  
have updated the document (and response) accordingly. Hopefully  
Pascal can do the same for the Primer.

Ian



On 4 Aug 2009, at 16:19, Jie Bao wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Jim Hendler<hendler@cs.rpi.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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]]
>>
>> or
>>
>> 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]]
>>
> I think the last sentence is important. It would be confusing if we
> just say RL is a syntactic subset of DL, but its reasoning rules are
> in the RDF semantics. It might be bizarre to explain to some
> RDF-minded that why in RL we can't say hasBrother (transitive) and
> hasSister (transitive) are disjoint, or hasBrother is irreflexive, but
> we may still apply RL inference rules to an OWL Full ontology that
> says so.
>
> Jie
>
>> or
>>
>> just say
>>
>> None of these profiles is a subset of another [[and avoid the  
>> whole issue]]
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Jie Bao
> http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~baojie
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 21:47:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 August 2009 21:47:37 GMT