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

RE: Proposed response to Martin Merry, HP

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 19:59:55 +0200
To: "Smith, Michael K" <michael.smith@eds.com>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Guus Schreiber" <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>, "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDKELHCBAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


Yes, I would support that: OWL Full has limited interoperability garantees,
much less so than OWL Lite.

I suspect we all take this for granted, but someone new to OWL might expect
a recommendation to have much better interoperability than any non-Lite
version of OWL will have.

Jeremy


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Smith, Michael K [mailto:michael.smith@eds.com]
> Sent: 12 June 2003 17:22
> To: Jeremy Carroll; Guus Schreiber; Jim Hendler
> Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Proposed response to Martin Merry, HP
>
>
> If we feel the need to assert that complete reasoning in OWL DL
> is impractical, I presume we should go on to say that
> complete reasoning in OWL Full is impossible?  And that reasoning
> with any particular set of rules in OWL Full is unpredictable,
> unless the user has performed a complexity analysis on his rule set?
>
> - Mike
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 10:02 AM
> To: Smith, Michael K; Guus Schreiber; Jim Hendler
> Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Proposed response to Martin Merry, HP
>
>
>
> I am less than convinced by text that is not more in-your-face.
> (this is not really meant as a response to Mike, more to Jim)
>
>
> >   Ontology developers adopting OWL should consider which species best
> >   suits their needs.  The choice between OWL Lite and OWL DL
> >   depends on the extent to which users require the more expressive
> >   restriction constructs provided by OWL DL.
> > [NEW:
> >   Reasoners for OWL
> >   Lite will have desirable computational properties.  Reasoners for
> >   OWL DL, while dealing with a decidable sublanguage, will be subject to
> >   higher worst-case complexity.
> > ]
> >
>
> this text still suggests that what we once called complete DL consistency
> checkers will exist. Since we have no evidence for this, and in
> fact we have
> evidence to the contrary, that should be made explicit: e.g.
>
> [
>    Reasoners for OWL
>    Lite will have desirable computational properties.
> Theoretically,  complete reasoners for
> OWL DL could be built, since it is a decidable sublanguage;
> however the worst-case complexity would probably be unacceptable.
>
> ]
>
> OWL DL is primarily a theoretical constuct and a research
> hypothesis - not a
> proven practical level.
>
> Jeremy
>
>
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2003 14:00:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:01 GMT