Re: changes to document overview (done)

The reason the qualification is there is that "large" is as easy to
misinterpret as "very large". By saying "relatively" large I am making
the comparison in the context of the other profiles.
-Alan

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Ian Horrocks
<ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> I would prefer to omit *any* qualification and simply say:
>
> "OWL 2 QL enables conjunctive queries to be answered using standard
> relational database technology; it is particularly suitable for
> applications where relatively lightweight ontologies are used to
> organize large numbers of individuals or where it is useful
> or necessary to access the data directly via relational queries (e.g.,
> SQL)."
>
> Ian
>
> On 11 Mar 2009, at 17:00, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>
>> From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: changes to document overview (done)
>> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:11:17 -0400
>>
>>> In this bit:
>>>
>>> "OWL 2 QL enables conjunctive queries to be answered using standard
>>> relational database technology; it is particularly suitable for
>>> applications where relatively lightweight ontologies are used with
>>> very large datasets, and where it is useful or necessary to access the
>>> data directly via relational queries (e.g., SQL)."
>>>
>>> my concerns would be that "very large datasets" could be misleading. I
>>> don't know that QL has been used with more than a few million rows and
>>> some people think of such as small. Also, I would put as coequal the
>>> large data sets and the need to use relational database. Therefore I
>>> would rephrase as:
>>>
>>> "OWL 2 QL enables conjunctive queries to be answered using standard
>>> relational database technology; it is particularly suitable for
>>> applications where relatively lightweight ontologies are used to
>>> organize relatively large numbers of individuals or where it is useful
>>> or necessary to access the data directly via relational queries (e.g.,
>>> SQL)."
>>>
>>> -Alan
>>
>> Good change.
>>
>> peter
>>
>
>

Received on Monday, 16 March 2009 07:57:23 UTC