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

Re: OWL Full Features in QRG

From: Jie Bao <baojie@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 15:36:24 -0400
Message-ID: <b6b357670905211236v35c95ed2jb9efddb059043aab@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Cc: "Peter F.Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de> wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Jie Bao [mailto:baojie@gmail.com]
>>Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 8:01 PM
>>To: Peter F.Patel-Schneider; Michael Schneider
>>Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
>>Subject: Re: OWL Full Features in QRG
>>Peter and Michael
>>Will you object to replace section 4.2 with the one "Additional
>>Vocabulary in OWL 2 RDF Syntax" on the discussion page?
> Well, since I am asked...
> What would I expect from such a card (I admit that I did not ponder much
> about QRG in the past)? Thinking more generally, what I would expect from
> other languages (a card for HTML for example), yes, I think as long as it is
> technically possible (enough space on the card), I would want to have /all/
> language features mentioned on it, even if they are "rarely used", "legacy"
> or even "deprecated".
I agree

> Because it is quite possible that I want to / have to use this card when
> working with old ontologies. I wouldn't really want to have the "special"
> features in a separate section, but rather along with the other features
> belonging to the same category. But I would appreciate if there were a
> *small* marker placed nearby a feature telling what's special with them. For
> example, if a term is deprecated, I would consider this relevant knowledge
> for my work, e.g., even if I were required to leave the old term in the
> ontology for the moment, I won't add additional occurrences, and could plan
> for a future redesign.
That may be applicable to owl:distinctMembers, owl:DeprecatedClass and
owl:DeprecatedProperty. For owl:DataRange and  owl:OntologyProperty,
the situation may be different: rdfs:Datatype has been used in too
many places, giving the alternative owl:DataRange syntax for each of
its occurance maybe unnecessary; for owl:OntologyProperty, that would
be quite confusing if we list the 3 OP both as OP and Annotation

> Such a card is good for learning by doing: One looks something up once or
> twice when one stumbles over it, and afterwards one knows about it and its
> special aspects, but still have the helpful card around, if one forgets
> about it again. But then it would be un-helpful if some terms were not
> mentioned in the card.

> So to summarize: I would keep the terms in, and even along with the other
> terms (no separate section), but with some marker ("D" = "deprecated" for
> DataRange, "L" = "legacy" for most others, perhaps really "R" = "RDF-Based
> Semantics" for OntologyProperty (not clear on this)).
Seen discussion above. The proposed markers, there are also problems:
for "L" - if a term is not officially deprecated, its status is not
really "legacy" in a formal way; for "R" - the problem is ontology
properties are treated as annotation properties in OWL 2 DL, that's
they are not purely only available in RDF-based semantics.

There is a side issue not related to QRG: if the use of
"owl:OntologyProperty" is only an OWL 2 Full feature, does that mean
all OWL 1 DL ontologies in the RDF syntax that use
"owl:OntologyProperty" or a non-predefined "owl:OntologyProperty"
(predefined ones will be annotation property) will be OWL 2 Full

> Michael
> --
> Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
> Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
> Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
> Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
> Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de
> WWW  : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider
> =======================================================================
> FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
> Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
> Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
> Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe
> Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor,
> Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer
> Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
> =======================================================================

Jie Bao
Received on Thursday, 21 May 2009 19:36:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:12 UTC