W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > February 2003

Re: OVERVIEW: WG preference - action from telecon

From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 10:06:46 +0100
Message-ID: <3E40D426.9040306@swi.psy.uva.nl>
To: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@ksl.Stanford.EDU>
CC: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, connolly@w3.org, Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl, hendler@cs.umd.edu, www-webont-wg@w3.org

About intersection in Lite, the Reference now includes in Sect. 8.3 the 
following text fragment for types of "class axioms" allowed in Lite:

> 3. Class axioms that consist of a class description of the owl:
 > intersectionOf type, with a class identifier as the domain
> value of the intersection statement. The range should be a 
 > list of class identifiers and/or property restrictions.

I think this is what we decoded and it is consistent with the OWL Lite 
class axioms in AS&S (Sec., the "complete" class with multiple 
"supers", which leads to a syntactic form that is covered by the second 
mapping rule for classes in Sec. 4.1)


Deborah McGuinness wrote:
> "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
>>From: Deborah McGuinness <dlm@ksl.Stanford.EDU>
>>Subject: Re: OVERVIEW: WG preference - action from telecon
>>Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 09:31:11 -0800
>>>i think to publish we need a resolution on
>>>1 - jim's request to take datatypes out and peter's request not to take them
>>Jim's request, as I understand it, was not to take datatypes out, but
>>instead was to fix the discussion.  You could look at AS&S to see how
>>datatypes are treated.
> Jim's email yesterday said "We have decided to do a new release of most of our
> documents for various reasons.  We'd like to include Overview if it
>   can be done in time.  To be in same batch would require Dan gets it by Monday -
> we agreed as group documents
>   probably wouldn't reflect the "sameClassAs" change, but would meet other major
> comments raised in reviews (your only
>   outstanding one is the datatype section issue I raised - for this version you
> could delete while we decide what to say for
>   the LC version,"
> If you want to suggest a very short section for inclusion that is fine.
>>>2 - the current addition of intersection of named classes only which is what
>>>I understood was decided on the phone call and ian's and peter's
>>>understanding of named classes and restrictions and owl lite.
>>A quick perusal of the minutes of the phone call turned up nothing
>>indicating that intersection was only for named classes.  Instead the
>>minutes say that interesection is to be as indicated in AS&S.
> The email I was working from from jim said:
> "The consensus was that since it is easy to create certain kinds of
> intersections in Owl Lite, should include owl:intersectionOf in the
> Owl Lite vocabulary list in the Overview document.    The discussion
> of this feature can look liek the discussion of the other features
> that have restrictions in lite - i.e. the paragraph just says
> smething like "can only be used with named classes" (oe however that
> is made clear in the Overview)."
> Since we have had discussions about trying to make it easy for frame systems,  I
> expected that that was taken into account with the use of named classes.
> This is not a hard thing to fix in the overview if it the decision to have both -
> I just dont want to do another update if I did the first one right yesterday in my
> round of changes that attempted to address the email I received.
>>>3 - franks updates today.
>>>frank has write lock
> --
>  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/index.html
>  (voice) 650 723 9770    (stanford fax) 650 725 5850   (computer fax)  801 705
> 0941

A. Th. Schreiber, SWI, University of Amsterdam,
Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2003 04:07:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:51 UTC