W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: LANG: compliance levels

From: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@KSL.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 17:09:42 -0700
Message-ID: <3CCB3DC6.79A18859@ksl.stanford.edu>
To: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>
CC: www-webont-wg@w3.org
I also strongly supported local ranges in our discussion at KR.  (this was
also my first comment on the earlier proposal for rdf on steroids that
without local ranges I could not support the constituencies I talk to most
often).  Frank also strongly supported it - he and I seem to speak to people
with similar needs.

My claim is that this is imperative to usefulness for most e-commerce
applications and most verification applications.  To be precise, I was
arguing for universal restrictions on local ranges.
Thus, in to meet Guus' point below, i claim it is imperative for ease of use
for those communities.

However, I stopped arguing my point when Ian made a point that his
communities require existentially qualified range restrictions.  He claims
that it is imperative to his large medical users.
All of us agreed that it was not a good thing to have both in the level one
and thus in order to get some agreement, both sides compromised by not
putting either in level 1.
This is what I thought was the largest concession from what I was looking
for in my optimal level 1.

to address mikes suggestion of dropping local ranges from level 2 if they
are not in level 1, i would vote strongly against this.
Local ranges are one of the most heavily used features in the work that I
have done on ecommerce and I would not be as vocal a supporter of
daml+oil/owl/fowl for web applications if we were not to include this in at
the worst level 2.

on cardinalities, while i am a strong supporter of their use in applications
and while I also wanted to get this in level 1, in the effort to gain some
agreement, and since we do allow functional roles (thereby allowing [0,1]
roles), I am willing to have functionality in level 1 while expecting that
many tool developers will market:

level1 support
level1 support  + things of use to their clients.  My expection is that
cardinalities will be something added by most tool developers.

deborah

Guus Schreiber wrote:

> I strongly support Mike Dean's remarks on local domain/range constraints
> and cardinality. Both are so commonly used in ER and O-O data models
> that it would be very weird if OWL would not support that at Level 1.
>
> I should add that "ease/frequency of use" is for me the prime criterion
> for putting a language feature in Level 1, and not whether the feature
> is difficult to implement in a DL reasoner (not saying this is the
> case).
>
> Guus
>
> --
> A. Th. Schreiber, SWI, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15
> NL-1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Tel: +31 20 525 6793
> Fax: +31 20 525 6896; E-mail: schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl
> WWW: http://www.swi.psy.uva.nl/usr/Schreiber/home.html

--
 Deborah L. McGuinness
 Knowledge Systems Laboratory
 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
 (voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850   (computer fax)  801
705 0941
Received on Saturday, 27 April 2002 20:10:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:49 GMT