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

Re: Issue: Add hasValue to OWL Lite

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 29 Oct 2002 17:09:48 -0600
To: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@ksl.stanford.edu>
Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1035932989.25017.8369.camel@dirk>

On Sat, 2002-10-26 at 12:41, Deborah McGuinness wrote:
> 
> There have been requests to add hasValue to OWL Lite.  This is a
> proposal to include hasValue in OWL Lite.

Hmm... it raises the issue clearly enough; do you really
mean for this to be a proposal to close it as well?

I don't feel strongly one way or the other; I don't have
much stake in what's in owl Lite and what's not.

But in order for me to agree to close this issue, I'd
like to know more about the impact on other documents...


> 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.

Could you elaborate that into a test case, or a sketch of one?
Maybe a few paragraphs for the guide? Hmm... I suppose
hasValue is already in the guide; it's just a matter
of whether it's designated as part of owl Lite.

I suppose the impact on the feature synopsis is just one
line, or maybe a paragraph or two.

How about semantics? Is OWL lite semantics just the
fast semantics applied to the lite syntax? I'm
still a little hazy there.

Any change to the reference document involved?


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 18:09:32 GMT

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