- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 22:46:41 +0100
- To: Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>
- 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
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 UTC