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

Re: Proposed response to Martin Merry, HP (move owl:oneOf, owl: have Value to OWL Full)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 13 May 2003 11:31:10 -0500
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1052843470.20120.331.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On closer examination of the comment, it seems
to be more about what goes in OWL DL than
what goes in OWL Lite.

i.e. this issue is at least as relevant as 5.23:

5.2 Language Compliance Levels
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.2-Language-Compliance-Levels

Our decision rationale for that one is considerably
less elaborate. Let's see... when Welty noted
the TAG discussion of profiles and such, I
thought our rationale was weak, but then I recall
that Reference grew a much better motivation
for the Lite/DL/Full situation... let's see if it's
got something we could use to satisfy
this commentor...

Yes, here it is...

  1.2 OWL Full/DL/Lite
  http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#Sublanguages

that could perhaps be cited from the issues list
under 5.2

Hmm... it says

"OWL DL (where DL stands for "Description Logic") was designed to
support the existing Description Logic business segment and to provide a
language subset that has desirable computational properties for
reasoning systems."

That doesn't seem to be consistent with the rationale for 5.23
of 19 Dec:

[[
Unfortunately, there are no know "practical" algorithms for SHOIQ(D+)
- it would probably be possible to create some sort of implementation
of C2 from the decidability/complexity proofs, but this would not have
the "nice" properties I mentioned above, and would be unlikely to be
useful in practice (no one has bothered to build such an
implementation up until now).
]]
-- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0239.html


Mr. Merry's point, "We're concerned that OWL users should have their
expectations met when they use OWL compliant systems." seems well
made, no? I'm starting to wonder if we can provide a coherent
response without reconsidering issue 5.2.

I see Jim offers to try again in his message of
Tue, 13 May 2003 11:21:44 -0400, so I'll stay tuned for that.


On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 10:16, Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-05-13 at 10:04, Dan Connolly wrote:
> [...]
> > > I'm happy to work on a better answer, but you don't suggest any text 
> > > for the meat of his comments,
> > 
> > I haven't found the decisions yet.
> 
> I found one by searching for "RESOLVED" and "oneof"...
> 
> Our 12 Dec decision on 15.23 is pretty clearly
> relevant:
> 
> "Note that because OWL DL includes both hasValue and oneOf, decision
> procedures for OWL DL reasoning are not _currently known_ to have these
> properties."
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0205.html
> 
> I'm still investigating...
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2003 12:33:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:00 GMT