Re: [OPEN] and/or [PORT] : a practical question

Christopher Welty wrote:

>
> Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu> wrote on 03/23/2004 02:39:08 PM:
>
> > At 18:53 +0100 3/23/04, Bernard Vatant wrote:
> > >Chris
> > >
> > >>  I may be misunderstanding your question,
> > >>  but I believe it is quite simple:
> > >>  if you want to treat classes as instances you are in OWL Full.
> > >>  There is simply no way to do that in DL or Lite ...
> > >
> > >I know that :))
> > >So let me put the question otherwise, in terms of best practice.
> > >
> > >- Is it worth the trade-off to switch one's ontology (otherwise DL)
> > >to OWL-Full, just to
> > >allow its classes to be used as objects in 'dc:subject' predicates?
> >
> > That's a weird way to ask the question.  You mean, is it worth doing
> > the extra work to break your naturally occuring model just so that
> > you can be in DL?
>
> Right.
>
> >
> > >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >Is the problem more clearly set this way?
> > >Is not it a BP issue?
> > >
> > I would argue this is indeed a BP issue, but probably for WORLD not
> > for OPEN... we need to explain why and when you would do the extra
> > work (and in every case we have explored it is extra work) to make
> > sure your ontology is in the DL profile of OWL.
>
> Wow, I never imagined having to argue over doing more work.......but....
>
> My view of World is to explain "WHY OWL and RDF are they way they are" 
> whereas OEP is for "HOW you do xxxx".  This seems like the latter....?
>
> -Chris 

i would go along with chris on this one although i will end up doing 
work on both of these subgroups so can contribute from either place.

-- 
 Deborah L. McGuinness 
 Knowledge Systems Laboratory 
 353 Serra Mall
 Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241 
 Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020 
 email: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu
 URL: http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/index.html 
 (voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850   (computer fax)  801 705 0941