W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > January to March 2004

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

From: Uschold, Michael F <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:45:44 -0800
Message-ID: <823043AB1B52784D97754D186877B6CF04894C08@xch-nw-12.nw.nos.boeing.com>
To: "DeborahL.McGuinness" <dlm@ksl.Stanford.EDU>, "Christopher Welty" <welty@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, "Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, "SWBPD" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
I think this is relevant to both OPEN and WORLD, though if pressed to
choose one, I'd go for OPEN. It seems to be more a question of how to
use the language as opposed to explaining the various language variants.
WORLD will need good examples to show the difference language variants,
this one might be considered for that purpose, if it is general enough
and simple enough.  
 
Mike
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of DeborahL.McGuinness
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 3:14 PM
To: Christopher Welty
Cc: Jim Hendler; Bernard Vatant; SWBPD
Subject: Re: [OPEN] and/or [PORT] : a practical question
 


Christopher Welty wrote:



Jim Hendler  <mailto:hendler@cs.umd.edu> <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
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2004 02:53:09 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 March 2004 02:53:12 EST