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 21:58:28 -0400
To: danbri@w3.org
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020606215828C.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Issue 3.4 - daml:UnambiguousProperty (fwd)
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 20:46:37 -0400 (EDT)

> On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> > From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
> > Subject: Re: Issue 3.4 - daml:UnambiguousProperty (fwd)
> > Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 08:53:20 -0400 (EDT)
> >
[...]
> > > 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.
> 
> Yup :(
> 
> Don't suppose you care to enumerate the choices as you see them...?

Let's see:

1/ Use a DB system, which is timeless.
2/ Use RDF, which is timeless.
3/ Use OWL, which will be timeless.
   1,2,&3 require applications to deal with the time-variant stuff
4/ Use a temporal logic.  Temporal logics are very hard to deal with, as
you have to worry about the temporal aspects of everything.  Temporal
logics are also hard to reason with.

There are probably other choices, these are just the ones that come to
mind.

> What I do at the moment is flag those properties with a class of my own,
> basically util:StaticUnambiguousProperty. I have software with hard-coded
> knowledge of this, and no expectation that anything in the wider Web will
> know what this means. A bit of a hack... Maybe we'll find a bunch of folk
> using such hacks, in which case documenting them at w3.org might make
> sense...?

Sure, but that would not change what OWL is, all that it would do is to
allow a community to have their own out-of-band agreements, and, maybe,
indicate to W3C that more research in temporal logics is desirable.

peter
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 21:58:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:50 GMT