W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > June 2004

RE: [OEP] public comment

From: Peter Mika <pmika@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 10:06:15 +0200
To: "'Natasha Noy'" <noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU>
Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000301c44ec1$cdf6ba50$fb1e2582@fspc055>

Natasha,

I perfectly agree with all you write. In fact I took the easier
direction for a start and the other way (from Full to DL) would have
more practical value.

I just wanted to add one more point to earlier arguments. While thinking
about this translation I found that it helped a lot in clarifying the
relationship between the various approaches and understanding them as
alternatives to expressing what is more or less the same thing. So maybe
it is useful to include it for the reader of the document (even if
non-normative and not expressible in web ontology languages) to help
him/her understand how the concepts/properties used in the various
approaches relate to each other.

Best,
Peter

 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Natasha Noy [mailto:noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 9:29 PM
> To: Peter Mika
> Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [OEP] public comment
> 
> Peter,
> 
> >> You have a point there, and others have raised similar issues [1],
> > [2].
> >> I am not sure (1) is a feasible option though -- see my reply to
Brian
> >> today. On (2) indeed translations between patterns would be
helpful.
> >> Short of providing the translation tools themselves what type of
> >> information should we provide in the note to enable  tool
developers
> > to
> >> write conversions?
> >
> > Let me just brainstorm aloud and correct me later if my logic goes
> > astray somewhere.
> 
> Thanks for the ideas! A few comments below.
> 
> > Aldo and I have used the foundational approach in the past, but it
> > carries a lot of commitment, so now let's just look if it's possible
to
> > find internal mappings. For the sake of argument, I'll try to map
> > Approach 2-5 to Approach 1. (Simply by looking at the number of
boxes,
> > Approach 1 seems to be the least expressive, which holds the promise
> > that we can project the other ontologies onto this one.)
> 
> "Expressive" may not be the right word. I would actually say that
> Approach 1 is the most expressive since it uses constructs that are
not
> available in other (DL) approaches. You are right though that it has
> fewer constructs and thus mapping to it is easier.
> 
> however, it also seems that from the purely  pragmatic point of view,
> what people will need is the opposite translation. That is, if you
want
> to allow editing in more natural (to many , at least) way, you want to
> edit using Approach 1 and then map it to OWL DL, using one of the
other
> approaches. Thus, it seems that you will need the translation from
> Approach 1 to the 4 others at least as much as the reverse direction.
> And these translations are tricker, since they need to introduce new
> concepts (those extra boxes in the diagrams).
> 
> So, if we want to do such an appendix, it seems that it should include
> translations in both directions).  I am not sure what the general
> feeling in the group is, in particular since we do not have any agreed
> upon formalism for rules yet, and here we will need to use existential
> qualifiers, skolems, or some such. Perhaps we'll bring it up in the
> telecon tomorrow.
> 
> Natasha
Received on Thursday, 10 June 2004 04:06:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:39 UTC