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

[moved to rdf-logic] Re: Proposed response to Golbeck regarding imports issue

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:47:09 -0400
Message-Id: <p05200f18bb14cbf72564@[10.0.1.2]>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

At 9:32 AM -0400 6/17/03, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
>Subject: Re: Proposed response to Golbeck regarding imports issue
>Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:18:40 -0400
>
>>
>>  >
>>  >>  In certain contexts, I think OWL would be useful with some ontologies
>>  >>  preimported.
>>  >
>>  >Well, this would not be OWL.
>>
>>  With due respect Peter, this must either be the dumbest thing I ever
>>  heard you say or, more likely, we're somehow not understanding each
>>  other.  Most of our tools enable the user to start with ontologies
>>  pre-imported -- for example we are building a cancer research project
>>  that starts from the NCI OWL Lite ontology.  It comes preloaded.  If,
>>  on the other hand, we started from having the user hit a button and
>>  import that ontology, it would not come preloaded.  I cannot see how
>>  this would make any difference to whether something is OWL or not.
>>
>>  My suspicion is there is some deeper issue which you are responding
>>  to. If we're just arguing about how the term "is OWL" is used, then
>>  it isn't worth much time, because the use of our vocabulary is out of
>>  our control once we publish it.
>>
>>    -JH
>
>Well, I am arguing over what it means to be an OWL reasoner.

That's fine - we agreed that the definition of an OWL reasoner was 
not something the WG was going to define except for what is already 
in TEST, and thus I welcome the continuation of this discussion on 
rdf-logic.


>
>
>Suppose, for example, that I built a tool that took in a set of XML/RDF
>documents (the premises) plus one other XML/RDF document (the consequent)
>and that always answered ``YES''.  It could claim that this was a reasoner
>for OWL, but with the following ontology preimported:
>
>	...
>	<owl:ObjectProperty rdf:about="#foo" />
>	<owl:Thing>
>	  <rdfs:subClassOf>
>	    <owl:Restriction>
>   	      <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#foo" />
>	      <owl:maxCardinality rdf:datatype="xsd:NonNegativeInteger">
>	        0
>	      </owl:maxCardinality>
>	    </owl:Restriction>
>	  </rdfs:subClassOf>
>	  <rdfs:subClassOf>
>	    <owl:Restriction>
>   	      <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#foo" />
>	      <owl:minCardinality rdf:datatype="xsd:NonNegativeInteger">
>	        1
>	      </owl:minCardinality>
>	    </owl:Restriction>
>	  </rdfs:subClassOf>
>	</owl:Thing>
>	...
>
>Is this a reasonable thing to do?  Of course not.  However, it is up to us
>to ensure that our specs do not admit this as an OWL reasoner.
>
>
>Of course, there is nothing wrong with someone claiming to have built to
>tool that determines OWL entailment with the above ontology (or any other
>collection of ontologies) added to the other premises.  Such a tool might
>be quite useful.  It is just that this is not OWL, and should not be
>advertised as OWL.
>
>
>Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>Bell Labs Research
>Lucent Technologies

-- 
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	  *** 240-277-3388 (Cell)
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler      *** NOTE CHANGED CELL NUMBER ***
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2003 09:47:32 GMT

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