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

Re: Issue 3.4 - daml:UnambiguousProperty (fwd)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 08:58:07 -0400
To: danbri@w3.org
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020606085807F.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Issue 3.4 - daml:UnambiguousProperty (fwd)
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 08:53:20 -0400 (EDT)

> On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:


> > I am totally confused as to why you would think that WebOnt is concerned
> > with time.  Could you please let me know why you think that WebOnt should
> > be concerned with the time-varying behaviour of properties?
> Because the properties of things vary over time, and we're supposed to be
> deploying this language in the World Wide Web. Hence the name.
> I understand that giving OWL a proper notion of time/change would be
> way too much for v1.0, perhaps ever. Nevertheless, if W3C are to RECommend that
> the Web community use OWL vocabs in real life to describe real things in
> the World Wide Web, it won't take long before practical use of OWL runs
> into situations where the truth about property values change of time.

Agreed.  And OWL will have nothing to say about that.  Its model theory
will describe information as of a particular instant in time (or, if you
prefer, information that it timeless).

> Maybe this is tutorial/primer material for OWL 1.0 rather than language
> fodder. 

I would say that it should go in a
	Living with OWL
document, not in any normative material or material intended for neophytes.

> I know my apps that use daml:UnambiguousProperty need to make
> stronger assumptions than those licenced by the DAML formal spec; but
> maybe that's my problem...

It is a problem.  You have several choices, none very palatable.

> Dan

Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 08:58:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:44 UTC