W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > May 2004

Re: Concrete and abstract domains disjointness

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 13:06:41 -0500
Message-Id: <p06001f46bcc574b3ce9b@[]>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org

>Dimitrios A. Koutsomitropoulos wrote:
>>Can somebody explain some formal reason why the concrete and abstract
>>domains (i.e. the datatype and individual sets) have to be disjoint in OWL
>I think in addition to the other postings, I would suggest 
>procedural reasons. Those who like this separation could point to 
>implementations (both real and theoretical algorithms) based on this 
>idea, and had the advantage that Daml+OIL has this separation. 
>Anyone wishing to challenge that really needed to point to working 
>systems, with academic creditionals, that was as credible. I don't 
>think this point was seriously challenged.
>Politically, those who were most likely to want to challenge this 
>separation were happy enough with OWL Full.
>The point of deliberately ignoring your request for *formal* 
>reasons, is that any such reasons will be the views of some (but not 
>all) of the WG. OWL was determined using a process, which was 
>(roughly) to take DAML+OIL and raise issues against it. IIRC this 
>issue was not (formally) raised, so the separation is in OWL because 
>it was in DAML+OIL (not for technical reasons)

Just to clarify, the reasons I suggested in my earlier email referred 
to the discussions during the design of DAML+OIL. As Jeremy points 
out, the result was never seriously debated in the process of 
designing OWL from DAML+OIL.



IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501			(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Monday, 10 May 2004 14:06:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:42 UTC