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

Re: do we really need two languages/levels? [Issue 5.2]

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:37:23 -0400
To: volz@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020711173723D.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: "Raphael Volz" <volz@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Subject: Re: do we really need two languages/levels? [Issue 5.2]
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:46:37 +0200

> I can only second Chris' statement
> "If you use a feature, all the time or not, that is not in OWL-lite, then
> use heavy OWL.  "Removing" a feature from OWL-lite is not removing it from
> OWL."
> However, the argument for having two conformance layers is not only
> restricted
> to "cheap admission".
> In many cases conceptualizations will simply not require the given
> expressive power,
> consider for example WordNet or any other large thesaurus that have found
> broad user
> communities and may be called ontologies (since they establish shared
> agreement due
> to common usage). If we know apriori that only a limited subset of language
> features
> is used, different (considerably faster) evaluation strategies can be used
> in
> implementations.

First, this argument has not been borne out in description logics.  Systems,
like CLASSIC, that only handle a limited language, have turned out to be
slower than systems, like FaCT, that handle a much more expressive
language, on the intersection of their languages.  Second, if it really
turns out to matter, what is the problem with having a system that analyzes
a KB and uses the subset reasoner if the KB uses the subset language?

> Third, the effort to learn the language is tremendoulsy simplified. Having a
> lower
> barrier for membership of the expected community will certainly increase the
> size
> of the community.

But what prevents anyone from writing a primer that only handles a subset
of the full language?  How would the absence of an OWL Lite hinder this way
of teaching part of OWL to users?

> Raphael

Received on Thursday, 11 July 2002 17:37:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:45 UTC