W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2005

Re: ACTION Bijan: to work on "closeOver" work-alike with

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 13:17:06 -0500
Message-Id: <e58129785f8962a9c50088b5b031d264@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>

On Mar 7, 2005, at 12:40 PM, Dan Connolly wrote:

> On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 10:55 -0500, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> Pursuant to this action item, I met with Steve on Friday (thanks dan
>> for getting the actions out, since it reminded me to do this). I
>> believe I convinced him that we could pretty effectively represent 
>> what
>> he wanted in OWL.
>> I do not have a fully worked out proposal, but you can examine the
>> thing we hacked together:
>> 	http://www.mindswap.org/dav/ontologies/bijan/2005/dawg/TestClosedOver
>> (You may need to run it through a pretty printer, or use Swoop:
>> 	http://www.mindswap.org/2004/SWOOP/
>> or protege or your favorite editor.)
> I looked at it thru N3/turtle glasses... I don't see any actual
> claims about MyStore being "closedOver" RDFS or owl-dl or anything.
> What am I missing?

As I said, it's not fully worked out. We did it during lunch and spoke 
some of it.

To make MyStore closedOver RDFS make it an instance of

(I'm updating the example file as we speak.)

>> Right now it uses nominals to represent graphs with different
>> expressivities.
> Also, I don't know why some are Things and some are Expressivitys:

Because I didn't have time to add them during the discussion. We 
changed the representation midway. However, I have just updated it.

>     :owl-dl     a :Expressivity .
>     :owl-full     a :Expressivity .
>     :owl-lite     a owl:Thing .
>     :rdf     a owl:Thing .
>>  It would be nicer if this were entirely class based,
>> but I'm not sure how that accords with the instance level modeling I
>> was hearing.
>> If the action was to show the feasibility, then it is completed.
> I suppose it's done to my satisfaction,

When will you be sure? I mean, I do need to know whether this action is 

> but it doesn't convince
> me that we should standardize this idiom at this time;

My action, as I understand it, was to convince Steve that he wouldn't 
have to enumerate all his graphs in order to say that they all were 
closed over RDFS. I think I have done that. Convincing you that this 
idiom should be standardized is a different action I think.

There may not be a need to standardize it at all. There are many 
different ways of representing what Steve wants. If we can presume OWL 
reasoning, then there's little need to pick and idiom. If we want to 
enforce something a little more restrictive, then we might.

A lot rests on the fleshing out of the discovery stuff anyway.

> i.e. anybody
> who wants it standardized will please flesh out more details.

I don't see that it's not fleshed, at least in principle. With the 
above blanks filled in, what details do you see missing? The 
unfortunate part, from my perspective, is the use of nominals, which is 
sort of a consequence of what I remembered to be the instance level 
choice of representation. (Also, there are future issues about, e.g., 
relations between expressivity; the difference between supporting 
expressivity foo and *only* supporting it (both way! i.e., not 
supporting only subsets of the expressivity and not supporting 

> Maybe
> Kendall groks well enough to run with it as is.


Received on Monday, 7 March 2005 18:17:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:46 UTC