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

Re: unhappy responses

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 11:17:35 +0000
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <254286AF-8430-4765-A335-62B82AEC94BA@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
To: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
On 5 Mar 2009, at 10:59, Michael Schneider wrote:
[snip]
>> Marijke appears to be confused about keys.

How about we say that she has a different view about keys.

> Maybe this pointer will be sufficient to resolve her confusion:
>
>  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_key>
>
> Or, alternatively, some pointer to an arbitrary textbook on the  
> basics of
> relational databases.

Let's presume she is familiar with these and just disagrees with them.

I think we're on firm ground to say that we are doing something normal  
with keys, that fits in with other ways that key like things work in  
OWL (e.g., max card constraints on inverse properties), and that no  
functionality is lost (since the modeler can impose it).

I see that she *accepts* our response:

"""Using the same terminology for different things easily leads t  
confusion and incorrect assumptions and this could have a knock-on  
effect in OWL 2 applications the userbase are, or is going to,  
develop; if the WG wants to risk that, that's your judgement call."""

So, it's down to a matter of judgement calls about what would be more  
confusing. I personally think that "hasKey" is fine. It attracts the  
right people to the feature. It's no more confusing than anything else  
(and much less so than some), and making it functional is more, rather  
than less, likely to cause user upset.

We've been calling these keys for more than a year and had no troubles  
(yet).

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2009 11:18:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 5 March 2009 11:18:13 GMT