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

Re: draft response for LC comment 31

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 12:40:11 +0100
Message-ID: <4996AD9B.4090602@w3.org>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
CC: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Hi Bijan,

the impression is that (1) the discussion in Issue 111 concentrated on
the issue of signalling DL vs Full semantics and that is where the
sameAs^3 solution came up and (2) Frank's comment is more on the
EL/QL/RL choices. That was touched upon in the discussion in Issue 111
but, as far as I can see and remember, the DL/Full issue took the upper
hand.

Am I completely wrong?

Ivan

(P.S. Shouldn't we enjoy or week end instead?:-)

Bijan Parsia wrote:
> On 14 Feb 2009, at 11:07, Ivan Herman wrote:
> 
>> Peter,
>>
>> I am not 100% convinced by this answer, I think we should have some
>> discussion either on the call or the f2f. Reading through Frank's
>> comments, I do not find it unreasonable to have a dedicated annotation
>> property that indicates the level of ontology which is intended in spite
>> of all the caveats that you describe.
> 
> Uh...we had long, extensive discussions of precisely this. I raised it
> as an issue thinking it would be a nice helpful thing. I came to believe
> that it's a very bad idea, at least given what we know.
> 
>> Of course, tools have to be
>> careful not to believe this mark but it at least opens the door for some
>> reasonable conventions that the community could follow. The fact that
>> some of the datasets/ontologies might be enormous is a compelling
>> argument to have something like that around...
> 
> I don't believe that's remotely compelling. There's all sorts of
> properties about an ontology you may wish to mine or filter on:
> 
>     http://owl.cs.manchester.ac.uk/repository/browser
> 
>> Yes, this could be one of those extra small things that lead to hell,
>> something you referred to at the last meeting. Nevertheless... I would
>> like to have some discussions on this, if possible.
> 
> I object. This is not a "extra small thing that leads to hell". This is
> a feature that was discussed extensively by the working group and rejected:
>     http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/111
> 
> I'm sorry, that Frank  finds the discussion in 111 "unconvincing" is not
> new information sufficient to reopen the issue. We were convinced. If
> Frank wants us to reconsider he must *argue* the case, not merely
> dismiss our discussion.
> 
> Remember I *raised* this; I *championed* this; I became convinced that
> any solution we came up with is unworkable. Prima facie we should
> respect that, and our own process.
> 
> (Note he doesn't raise the issue of imports at all :()
> 
> Furthermore, this is exactly the sort of thing that can be done, at
> lower cost and risk, outside the working group.
> 
> (The OpenCyc example is particularly silly...I don't believe it's
> particularly difficult to do profile checking on it, or on NCI, or on
> SNOMED...again, see the TONES repository.)
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan.

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf


Received on Saturday, 14 February 2009 11:40:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 14 February 2009 11:40:51 GMT