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

2009/2/16 Ivan Herman ivan@w3.org

 ....
 Concerning the rest of your comment and NF&R


> That said, I
> think part of the issue is that there is no clear understanding when QL
> could be or should be used as opposed to, say, RL (or EL or the DL
> altogether for that matter). Neither the profile document nor any other
> gives any help for that and my understanding is that this is Lilly's
> main concern...
>
>

There were not really guidelines for OWL 1 species ... The Overview
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s1.3 only introduced
the three (OWL DL, Lite, and Full),  just as NF&R presently does for the OWL
2 profiles
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/New_Features_and_Rationale#F15:_Profiles_OWL_2_EL.2C_OWL_2_QL.2C_OWL_2_RL

That said, we should improve as much as we can.
I may slightly reformulate the section below, to be more explicit

(1) "Consequently, different profiles of language have emerged, been
requested by different types of users - ontologists, DBMS or rule engine
developpers -  which correspond to various application scenarios:

   - a scalable profile for large but (rather) simple ontologies that
   enables good time performance for ontology (TBox/schema) reasoning (OWL 2
   EL).
   - a profile that can easily interoperate with relational database
   systems, useful for applications where scalable reasoning on large datasets
   is the most important task (OWL 2 QL).
   - a profile that can easily interoperate with rules engines and rule
   extended DBMS, useful for applications where query answering is the most
   important task (OWL 2 RL). "

replacing it by something like

(2) Ontology developpers may consider which profile best suits their needs.
The choice between the different profiles mainly depends on the
expressiveness required by the application, the priority to reasoning
on classes or data, the size and importance of scalability etc. For
instance, those who look for

   - a scalable profile for large but (rather) simple ontologies that
   enables good time performance for ontology (TBox/schema) reasoning  may
   prefer to chose OWL 2 EL.
   - a profile that can easily interoperate with relational database
   systems, useful for applications where scalable reasoning on large datasets
   is the most important task may prefer to chose OWL 2 QL.
   - a profile that can easily interoperate with rules engines and rule
   extended DBMS, and useful for applications where query answering is the most
   important task  may prefer OWL 2 RL. "

Would that agrees you ?
else, if it's not yet enough, could you/anybody suggest a suited sentence to
be added to discrimate between OWL QL and RL or what else  ?

(BTW NF&R overview of the profiles points to the Profile and to the Primer
for more extensive doc)

 Thanks

>
> Ivan
>
> >> Given the sentence in Lilly's comment "... in particular, identifying
> >> different subsets of OWL2 for developers with limited logic background.
> ..."
> >> it might be welcome to add that profile checkers* are on the way that
> will
> >> offer such functionality and allow them for checking just as they did
> >
> > I added a sentence about profile checking to the response,
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/SS1a
> >
> >> Christine
> >>
> >> * as pointed out by
> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Feb/0035.html
> >
> > peter
> >
>
>  --
>
> 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
>



-- 
Christine