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

Re: LC comments 18, 19, 59

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:28:19 -0400
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0903180028i5211ede6y7e8a5d996452b3c8@mail.gmail.com>
To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
minor typo (aside from Peter on the sig).

s/thanks for pointing the out/thanks for pointing them out/

Aside from that I wonder how useful it will be to have a pointer into
our meeting minutes. I suggest that we don't include that, but rather
send this out as soon as we have the promised paragraph explaining
sameAs implementation in QL.

I notice that there isn't an action to do this. Is someone willing to
take this on?

-Alan

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
> Uli asked me to forward these draft replies.
>
> Before sending them, she needs to update the relevant specs with the fixes,
> but will do so after or on the trip back from her vacation (which ends this
> week).
>
> If the WG is good with these, then she can do the changes and ship.
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
>
>> -------
>>
>> Dear Maurizio,
>>
>> Thank you for your message
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0014.html
>> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
>>
>> Your comment is closely related to the one by Misha (see
>>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0019.html)
>> and Ivan (see http://www.w3.org/mid/49881F19.7040209@w3.org).
>>
>> The working group has decided to implement the editorial changes and will
>> correct the typos, thanks for pointing the out. We have also decided to add,
>> to OWL 2 QL, reflexive, irreflexive, & asymmetric property axioms. Moreover,
>> we will fix the inaccuracies in the complexity table, following suggestions
>> by Misha and discussions with you: for data complexity, we will add that OWL
>> 2 QL is in AC_0, i.e., queries are first order rewritable and that the
>> taxonomic complexity is NLogSpace-complete. Finally, we have decided *not*
>> to add sameAs to OWL 2 QL, but to add a small paragraph that explains that,
>> if one wants to handle ontologies that are OWL 2 QL plus sameAs, then a
>> preprocessing step that materialises the sameAs relation or an extension of
>> the rewriting technique that rewrites into recursive queries can be used,
>> see http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-02-24#OWL_QL .
>>
>>  Please acknowledge receipt of this email to
>>  <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should
>>  suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you
>>  are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
>>
>> -------
>>
>> Dear Misha and Roman,
>>
>> Thank you for your message
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0019.html
>> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
>>
>> Your comment is closely related to the one by Maurizio (see
>>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0014.html)
>> and Ivan (see http://www.w3.org/mid/49881F19.7040209@w3.org).
>>
>> The working group has decided to implement the editorial changes and will
>> correct the typos, thanks for pointing the out. We have also decided to add,
>> to OWL 2 QL, reflexive, irreflexive, & asymmetric property axioms. Moreover,
>> we will fix the inaccuracies in the complexity table, following your
>> suggestions and discussions with Maurizio: for data complexity, we will add
>> that OWL 2 QL is in AC_0, i.e., queries are first order rewritable and that
>> the taxonomic complexity is NLogSpace-complete. Finally, we have decided
>> *not* to add sameAs to OWL 2 QL, but to add a small paragraph that explains
>> that, if one wants to handle ontologies that are OWL 2 QL plus sameAs, then
>> a preprocessing step that materialises the sameAs relation or an extension
>> of the rewriting technique that rewrites into recursive queries can be used,
>> see http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-02-24#OWL_QL .
>>
>>  Please acknowledge receipt of this email to
>>  <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should
>>  suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you
>>  are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
>>
>> -------
>>
>> Dear Ivan,
>>
>> Thank you for your message
>> http://www.w3.org/mid/49881F19.7040209@w3.org
>> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
>>
>> Your comment is closely related to the one by Maurizio (see
>>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0014.html)
>> and Misha (see
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0019.html).
>>
>> The working group has decided to implement the editorial changes and will
>> correct the typos, thanks for pointing the out. We have also decided to add,
>> to OWL 2 QL, reflexive, irreflexive, & asymmetric property axioms.
>>
>> Finally, we have decided *not* to add sameAs or functional properties to
>> OWL 2 QL:
>>
>> - [sameAs] OWL 2 QL was designed so that any query Q against an ontology
>> whose data (i.e., information about individuals, the classes they are
>> instances of and how they are related via properties) is stored in a
>> relational database DB, can be answered by rewriting the query Q into an SQL
>> query Q1 and then answering Q1 against DB using a standard RDBMs. This
>> property is known to be lost in the presence of sameAs. For the LOD
>> community, we will add a small paragraph explaining that, in order to handle
>> OWL 2 QL plus sameAs, a preprocessing step that materialises the sameAs
>> relation or an extension of the rewriting technique that rewrites into
>> recursive queries can be used, see
>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-02-24#OWL_QL .
>>
>> - functional properties can only be added under the so-called unique name
>> assumption, i.e., different names denote different indiviudals. This
>> assumption, together with functional properties, will lead to
>> inconsistencies if an individual has 2 successors w.r.t. a functional
>> property -- a semantics that is suitable for some applications and
>> unsuitable for others. Hence we have chosen to not include functional
>> properties to OWL 2QL.
>>
>>  Please acknowledge receipt of this email to
>>  <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should
>>  suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you
>>  are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
>>
>>
>>
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 07:28:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 18 March 2009 07:28:56 GMT