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

RE: ISSUE 5.2 Language Compliance Levels - proposed clarification

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:50:22 +0100
To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDGEAMCBAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

Thanks Ian for this pointer - it does seem highly relevant to the content of
my proposal.

> 4. If you really did succeed in eliminating the ability to express
> "complete" classes in OWL Lite, you would make it useless in a wide
> range of important applications (e.g., see [3]).

> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0088.html
>

I repeat one part of that:

[[
We have also done a lot of work recently on a publish and subscribe
system using DAML+OIL/OWL. This is similar to the above service
discovery application in that subscribers describe the kinds of
"publication" (e.g., messages) they are interested in, and messages
are routed to subscribers according to their descriptions.
]]

If I have understood correctly, without the complete class descriptions the
subscriptions could not be made. For instances if I want messages both about
HP and the SemanticWeb, I can say that the messages I want are subClassOf
both of these, but without the complete part of the class description any
particular message that has been categorized as in both, may fail to be in
my subset of the intersection.

Personally, I think we could decide that publish and subscribe type
applications need to use OWL DL; but I emphasis - I want to concur with the
majority here.

Jeremy
Received on Monday, 27 January 2003 09:51:15 GMT

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