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

RE: ISSUE 5.2 Language Compliance Levels - proposed clarification

From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:30:15 +0000
Message-ID: <15927.62343.228697.808523@galahad.cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org

On January 27, Jeremy Carroll writes:
> 
> 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.

Correct.

> 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.

My original message ([3]) was in support of my strong disagreement
with this statement. Why do you want to impose the *significant*
additional overhead of OWL DL reasoning on a very wide range of
applications?

Ian

> 
> Jeremy
> 
Received on Wednesday, 29 January 2003 10:27:08 GMT

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