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

Re: draft response for LC comment 26 (a and b)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 16:13:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20090214.161336.243976223.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: ivan@w3.org
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Subject: Re: draft response for LC comment 26 (a and b)
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 12:01:48 +0100

> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> Here is a draft response for all of the comment from Lilly (SS1a and
>> SS1b).  I put them both together largely because no document changes are
>> being proposed (except for removing an extraneous word for Syntax, which
>> I have already done).  
>> The response for LC comment 37 could just point to this response.
>> peter
>> [Response for LC Comment 26:]
>> Dear Susie,
>> Thank you for your message
>>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jan/0033.html
>> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
> This is not the right link! I guess you meant:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0033.html
> (comments vs. wg:-)

Ooops.  Fixed on the Wiki page.

>> 1/ Concerning OWL 2 Profiles:
>> The OWL 2 effort was designed to extend the constructs of OWL to
>> encompass those that users had asked for, that researchers could
>> specify, and that implementers had or could implement.  It is thus
>> definitely the case that OWL 2 is supported by research.  However, the
>> driving force was much more users and implementers.
>> The OWL profiles had a similar genesis.  If the driving force behind the
>> OWL profiles was primarily research, then there could have been many
>> more profiles, and the profiles would have had a different focus.
>> This is particularly the case for OWL RL.  OWL RL is designed to capture
>> the essence of several partial implementations of OWL functionality by
>> means of forward chaining rules.  Previously all that could be said
>> about these implementations was that they were partial implementations
>> of OWL.  OWL RL provides a much more complete characterization for
>> rule-based implementations of OWL.  Yes, there are formal results
>> underlying OWL RL, but these formal results are descriptive of the
>> extant implementations instead of being driving forces for the design of
>> OWL RL.
>> OWL EL and OWL QL also do have a formal basis.  However they again are
>> attempts to capture existing implementation techniques and existing
>> ontologies.  
>> In any case, the OWL 2 profiles are simply there for those who may be
>> interested taking exploiting desirable characteristics of
>> implementations of the profiles.  If one does not care about these,
>> there is no need to consider the profiles at all.
>> The OWL WG does not intend to make any changes in response to this
>> part of your message.
> Although I do not disagree with what you write, I wonder whether we
> should not hold off with this part of the response, until the situation
> with QL becomes final. I had some comments, Uli is currently in
> discussion with the DL Lite experts, and that may lead to changes on QL.
> Maybe those changes will also be influenced by her remark on "very
> challenging to teach system developers to use new OWL2, in particular,
> identifying different subsets of OWL2 for developers with limited logic
> background." This remark certainly came up in the discussions with Uli
> and the other experts...
> Ivan

I don't see that changes to QL are particularly germane here.  They
might be additional evidence that we are not completely beholden to some
secret cabal of DL theorists, but there is lots of other evidence
supporting the WG's independence, particularly related to RL.  I don't
think that any more is needed to response to this mostly positive

Received on Saturday, 14 February 2009 21:13:56 UTC

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