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

Re: DRAFT response to comment #54, Jan Wielemaker

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 09:54:18 +0000
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <B7F41BC9-C1F0-4769-B419-3CAB46B84CF3@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
On 15 Feb 2009, at 09:35, Ivan Herman wrote:

>
> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> On 15 Feb 2009, at 09:17, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> [[[
>>> ... Ie, the situation has _not_ changed compared to OWL 1.
>>> ]]]
>>>
>>> ie, his worries are unfunded.
>>
>> I hope they are unfunded, but they are definitely unfounded :)
>>
>
> Oops:-) Well, why don't we say they are hopefully (for him) funded but
> unfounded:-)

Well, I'd like his *work* to be funding, not his unfounded worries :)

>
>>> If he could live with OWL 1 then he could
>>> live easily with OWL 2. That is the essence of what we have to  
>>> say, the
>>> rest is cherry on the cake, in fact... Let us not worry whether he  
>>> will
>>> have to change his toolchain later (eg, for RIF); this is not the
>>> subject for a LC comment response in my view...
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Ivan
>>>
>>> P.S. Jan's systems, based on Prolog, is primarily targeted at OWL  
>>> Full
>>> applications,
>>
>> Except for some stuff that punning and annotations now covers, I  
>> don't
>> think this is *substantively* true. But an argument for another  
>> day :)
>>
>
> Sorry. What I meant is: I know that Jan's system is primarily used by
> people (at least in the Netherlands) who concentrate on OWL Full-like
> applications.

What's an OWL Full-like application? To my knowledge, the main OWL  
Fullism is things like subpropertying rdfs:label, which is not, IMHO,  
interestingly OWL Full. (I.e., it can be accommodated via punning or  
via annotationSubPropertyOf).

> I did not mean to say that a prolog environment is
> inherently OWL Full only.

I didn't think that, but I think Jan et al overstate their use of OWL  
Full per se, or rather, OWL Full features that are not in OWL DL.

For example, do they rely on owl:Thing being infinite? (No.) On non- 
simple roles in number expressions? (I seriously doubt it.) Syntax  
reflection? (In a sort of trivial way, i.e., Jan uses owl.owl as a  
kind of bootstrapping, but it's hardly necessary as all that could be  
replaced with a bit of Prolog.) Existential bnodes in class  
expressions? (I *really* doubt it...he doesn't use existential bnodes  
at all, afaik.)

Part of the fundamental, ongoing, problems with OWL Full and OWL Full  
advocacy is that people conflate OWL Full with a style of presentation  
(triples). This leads to *all* sorts of confusion :(

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Sunday, 15 February 2009 09:54:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 15 February 2009 09:54:55 GMT