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

Re: ISSUE: owl:Class name misleading; try owl:Set?

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 12:46:40 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20030103.124640.125127341.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: connolly@w3.org
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Subject: Re: ISSUE: owl:Class name misleading; try owl:Set?
Date: 03 Jan 2003 10:19:58 -0600

> On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 09:58, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

[...]

> > > This is by design, no? Perhaps that's not the way other
> > > folks understood the design, but that's what I had in mind when we
> > > closed the layering issue.
> > 
> > OWL/Full does not have this situation.  In fact, it is not possible in
> > OWL/Full, as 
> > 1/ OWL/Full identifies the class extensions of owl:Thing and rdfs:Resource
> >    (see Section 5.4 of AS&S);
> 
> Yes, I just re-read that.
> 
> That's not the design I had in mind when we closed the layering
> issue. I don't think the way it's written is traceable to
> any WG decision; nor is my position, meanwhile.


From the Issues List
(http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.3-Semantic-Layering)

5.3 Semantic Layering

...

Closed as described in the Consensus on semantic layering ....


From the Consensus on semantic layering
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Oct/0022.html)

...

Large OWL .... [now called OWL Full]
Fast OWL .... [now called OWL DL]


From the ``Layering RDFS into OWL'' document
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/RDFS2OWL-L.html
which was a document for the Bristol ftf as mentioned at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Sep/0505.html
which is the proposed agenda for the Bristol ftf as mentioned at 
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ftf4
which is the minutes of the 4th ftf as mentioned at
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/
which is the offical page of the W3C Web Ontology Working Group as
and is listed on both http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/ and http://www.w3.org/ in
such a way so as to support this claim.
(I am taking it on faith that http://www.w3.org/ has some official
connection with W3C.)


4. Large OWL

...

IOT = IR [class extension of owl:Thing = IR]


So, I think that there is more-than-adequate support for the assertion that
the identification of the class extensions of owl:Thing and rdfs:Resource
in OWL Full can be directly traced to decisions made by the W3C Web
Ontology Working Group.

> So I've asked (in my message of 01 Jan 2003 14:09:40 -0600)
> that the editors change it to the design I prefer:
> owl:Thing is smaller than rdfs:Resource, even in owl:Full.
> Rationale: it seems easier to justify the separate
> owl:Thing term this way.
> 
> If you're declining my request, I'll ask that it get on the whole
> group's agenda unless I see a more satisfactory reason why
> the design I prefer isn't the way to go.

It isn't for the simple reason that the working group decided otherwise.
If you want to reopen this closed issue, I believe that the appropriate
channel is a request to the chairs.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Lucent Technologies


PS: This searching through old documents is getting rather tiresome.
Received on Friday, 3 January 2003 12:46:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:56 GMT