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

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

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 03 Jan 2003 13:43:39 -0600
To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1041623019.22235.81.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 11:46, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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)

That document is what the WG decided to adopt; no more, no less.

"RESOLVED: to close the layering issue (5.3) as described in Consensus
on semantic layering, provided the 2 technical bits of work can be
done."
 -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/ftf4#Issue

The rest of the details ("the 2 technical bits of work")
were left to the editors, subject to review by the WG
as usual. Here we are, in that review.

> ...
> 
> 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]

The WG did not decide to adopt the ``Layering RDFS into OWL'' document.
That document is part of the discussion that led to the decision,
but so are lots of others.

> 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.

I don't think so.

> > 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.

I'd prefer to work it out with the editor. But if we're done
negotiating, then no, I'm not satisfied, and I will
ask the chair to put it on the whole group's agenda.


> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Bell Labs Research
> Lucent Technologies
> 
> 
> PS: This searching through old documents is getting rather tiresome.

I find it's the best way to work.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 3 January 2003 14:43:35 GMT

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