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

Re: draft response for LC comment 31

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:14:54 +0000
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <ED0D1395-35C8-404A-9FB1-7B655F3BAD51@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
On 14 Feb 2009, at 11:40, Ivan Herman wrote:

> Hi Bijan,
>
> the impression is that (1) the discussion in Issue 111 concentrated on
> the issue of signalling DL vs Full semantics

No. E.g.,
	<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Apr/0265.html>


> and that is where the
> sameAs^3 solution came up and (2) Frank's comment is more on the
> EL/QL/RL choices.

	<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008May/0140.html>
"""We might introduce owl:EL++, owl:DL-Lite, and owl:OWL-R-DL, but
 > say that they are, from the point of view of the consequence >  
relation, equivalent to owl:DL. We should then say that we merged >  
the actually orthogonal concerns of selecting the consequence >  
relation and providing hints into one construct due to practical >  
reasons."""

> 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.

DL/Full was important , but Profile signaling (i.e., in order to hint  
to an editor to maintain that profile) was a key motivation and was  
explored as well.

The only difference with Frank's is that he doesn't want it to name  
the *intended* profile, but the *actual* profile. But many, if not  
most, of the same problems apply (consider if you import such  
assertions).

Plus, the problem just isn't worth solving at this level. He's  
basically asking that we define a format for a very specific sort of  
(determinably) data about a document. Why not owl:numberOfClasses?  
This is pretty useful information too.

See again the TONES repository.

There's no evidence that I can see that we need a special, in band,  
standard place to record such metadata. I've done surveys of the OWL  
Web, built and hosted species validators, etc.  and not run into  
trouble. The danger of divergence between this metadata and the  
contents of the document are real and could be significant. (see how  
mime type sniffing is a critical part of web browsers).

To put it another way, if we add this, I shall be recommending that  
people ignore it and that it is bad practice to supply or rely on it.

> Am I completely wrong?

I think so. The reason sameAs^3 was even discussed is because Sandro  
had a very strong desire that OWL Full semantics intending documents  
be syntactically detectable. Since the intendedProfile mechanism was  
deemed to be inadequate for this (or any profile signaling for any  
reason) that we were able to find a work around for his problem helped  
us move on. But intendedProfile was, always, by me at least, also  
intended for profile signalling.

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

Oh yeah :)

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Saturday, 14 February 2009 14:15:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 14 February 2009 14:15:34 GMT