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 22:40:15 -0400
Cc: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>, Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <0B7827F3-A3C3-4BB2-9DA5-7877D1EEA41B@cs.rpi.edu>
To: Pascal Hitzler <hitzler@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Pascal -
  You clearly misunderstood me, the sentence you put in the primer is:

Each of the profiles presented below is a (strict) syntactic subset of  
OWL DL, but none of these profiles is a subset of another.

which is the sentence I am having the problem with! --  the second  
part of my response was added to this sentence so as to clarfiy - so  
you've made exactly the change I raised my complaint about...

My first choice would be to do what Ian did in the profiles document  
(simply take out the part about syntactic subset and include the  
second),
my second choice would be to add a new sentence that fixes the issue  
that I am having a problem with  (but I agree with Ian that coming up  
with something everyone would be happy with would be too much work and  
too major a change)
  so be good if we could simply go to the change as Ian suggested
thanks
  -Jim H.




On Aug 4, 2009, at 5:59 PM, Pascal Hitzler wrote:

> In the primer, the wording is already exactly as the first part of  
> Jim's  second  suggestion. So no further changes to the primer at  
> this stage.
>
> Pascal.
>
>
> Ian Horrocks wrote:
>> 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
>
> -- 
> 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 Wednesday, 5 August 2009 02:41:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 5 August 2009 02:41:30 GMT