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

RE: ISSUE 5.2 Language Compliance Levels - proposed clarification

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:56:39 -0500
Message-Id: <p05200f2aba5de29b9014@[]>
To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, 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

At 15:30 +0000 1/29/03, Ian Horrocks wrote:
>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.
>>  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

Ian - could you actually expand on this a bit -- in particular, the 
current Owl Lite and the Current Owl DL are in the same complexity 
class, except for OneOf -- the additional implementational burden 
from Lite to DL seems fairly small if one doesn't include these 
features based on our reading about tableaux (and not including 
datatypes which are as yet unresolved in our design) - are we wrong? 
We're really trying to figure out if writing an OWL Lite reasoner is 
really easier than writing a SHIQ reasoner - and from the Handbook of 
DL it looks like it isn't that much different.
  (re-reading the above it looks liek I'm advocating something else -- 
let me make it clear the above is meant as a real question -- can you 
elaborate a bit on the additional complexity of moving from Lite 
Reasoning to DL reasoning - as it effects a lot of how I write our 
implementation report)

Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
Received on Wednesday, 29 January 2003 16:56:54 UTC

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