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

Re: LANG: compliance levels

From: Enrico Motta <e.motta@open.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 20:43:58 +0100
Message-Id: <p05100301b8f200882714@[]>
To: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>, Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
At 5:09 pm -0700 27/4/02, Deborah McGuinness wrote:
>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.

Can't one define existentially qualified range restrictions by having 
local ranges + min-cardinality? Or are they something else?

>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.

I also think that they are so used that they shoudl be in level 1

>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.

The main purpose of level 1 is to provide a simplified language for 
tool developers. So, if we expect them to put cardinality in, why not 
adding it ourselves?


>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 Sunday, 28 April 2002 15:44:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:43 UTC