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

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

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:53:38 -0500
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
cc: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <1627.1234835618@ubehebe>

Jim Hendler writes:
>    Frankly, in practice I'm finding it extremely hard to explain why  
> three profiles are needed, and I would again propose that we consider  
> moving the other documents to CR, but hold back the profiles document  
> for further work on explanations and to avoid confusion that could  
> lead to less adoption of DL/Full, which still seems to me to be where  
> the most important OWL 2 extensions currently live.

FWIW, I think it's easier (and more useful) to explain the difference
between QL and RL [1] than the difference between CR and Rec [2].  It
seems to me like this "hold back" strategy would leave people (rightly)
confused about W3C process instead of trying to understand the
differences between the profiles.

      -- Sandro


[1] They are both ways to make queries of a database and have some OWL
    inferencing done to give you additional query results.  With QL, the
    data is left as-is, and the queries are re-written to also return
    OWL inferences.  With RL, the *queries* are left as-is, but a
    process is run to add more data (the OWL inferences) to the
    database.  The choice between the two depends on which inferences
    you care about (some can only be implemented with one approach, some
    with the other), and the resource/performance demands of your
    application.  [This is off the top of my head, trying to be clear
    and simple.]

    [After writing that, I (as a user) want a clear and simple table of
    which OWL features are in each, making it easy to see which are in
    both.   That doesn't have to come from OWL-WG.]

[2] A "Candidate Recommendation" (CR) is a W3C specification that is
    mature enough that people should try to implement it, but the W3C
    has not yet determined whether it has been sufficiently implemented
    to demonstrate that it *can* be implemented.  [This is off the top of
    my head, trying to be simple and clear.  Since I expect QL and RL to
    be easy to implement, I don't really see how they could legitimately
    be stuck in CR.]
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2009 01:53:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 17 February 2009 01:53:49 GMT