Re: LC comments 18, 19, 59

I've copied these into the response pages, fixing the sig and the
typo, and leaving a note at the top about my comment re pointing to
the minutes.

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/ML1
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/MZ1
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/LC_Responses/IH3

-Alan

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 3:28 AM, Alan Ruttenberg
<alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 07:37:41 UTC