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

Re: draft response for LC comment 31

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 16:09:40 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20090214.160940.231632185.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk
Cc: ivan@w3.org, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Thanks, Bijan, for reminding me that the discussion of Issue 111 did
more than touch on this issue.  I've strengthened my wording in
the response as it relates to the issue dicussion.

See http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/FH5 for the current
version of the proposed response.


From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: draft response for LC comment 31
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:14:54 +0000

> 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 21:10:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:09 UTC