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

Re: Issue: Add hasValue to OWL Lite

From: Enrico Motta <e.motta@open.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 18:56:19 +0000
Message-Id: <p05100316b9e48a14c52f@[137.108.24.224]>
To: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>, webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

I am in favour of adding has-value to Owl Lite especially because of 
argument (a) below.

Enrico


At 10:41 AM -0700 10/26/2002, Deborah McGuinness wrote:
>There have been requests to add hasValue to OWL Lite.  This is a
>proposal to include hasValue in OWL Lite.
>
>The arguments for adding hasValue include:
>
>a – It is required for conceptual modeling of common use cases:
>This position is supported by comments sent to public-WebONT-comments
>along with requests in telecoms and face to face meetings.  For example,
>David Jones from Boeing in [1] states that the current OWL Lite support
>their current usage with the primary exception of hasValue.  He states
>that it is required for, among other things, their applications that
>integrate heterogeneous databases.  Others have expressed needs for this
>expressive feature to support other use case scenarios such as
>configuration, b2b commerce, etc.  Claims include that these
>applications can not be modeled without this expressive construct.
>Arguably, it is the most heavily used of the OWL constructs that is not
>in OWL Lite, thus one argument states that if we add anything else to
>OWL Lite, it should be this feature.
>
>b.  hasValue has been included in some previous description logic-based
>systems and its heavy usage can be seen in applications of those
>systems.  For example, one could look at CLASSIC and Loom applications
>for past evidence of usage.
>
>c.  It has been proposed by Volz  in [2] that hasValue can be
>implemented on top of standard SQL:99-compatible commercial databases,
>thereby making inclusion in the language less problematic
>
>The arguments against adding hasValue include:
>
>d.  OWL Lite is getting somewhat expressive, and there has been
>resistance to adding more features
>
>e. There has not been a proof of point c above; only some support for
>the position that hasValue does not cause problems for
>implementattions.  There are people who believe that hasValue will cause
>additional complexity for implementers of OWL Lite-compliant systems if
>it is added.
>
>
>
>
>[1]
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2002Aug/0014.html
>
>[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Oct/0033.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 Tuesday, 29 October 2002 14:17:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:53 GMT