Re: Component attachment to data set level in OWL 2 DL

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Dave Reynolds
<dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 07/06/13 10:25, Markus Stocker wrote:
>>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> Thanks for comments.
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Dave Reynolds
>> <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Markus,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 05/06/13 18:17, Markus Stocker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> The Example 4 [1] demonstrates how to attach a component at the data
>>>> set level. However, qb:DataSet is a class and, as far as I understand,
>>>> this statement is thus beyond OWL DL. Am I correct that this can be
>>>> circumvented by using the Punning feature of OWL 2 DL in adding the
>>>> assertion owl:NamedIndividual(qb:DataSet)?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Data Cube ontology is not OWL 2 DL in several ways and attachment
>>> declarations is certainly one of them.
>>
>>
>> Could it be of interest to document in what ways the ontology is not OWL 2
>> DL?
>
>
> Not sure.
>
> Most of the issues are minor details about the way the ontology is drafted,
> rather than anything fundamental to the design. The component attachment
> issue is the only substantive one and we've covered that.
>
> So in principle it would be only quite modest work to document and/or work
> around the DL issues. However, I'm not sure there is any appetite for it. In
> the couple of years it has been in use no one has reported any problems due
> to the lack of DL compatibility. It is not the sort of vocabulary or
> application area were inference beyond RDFS has much value. Given the
> current slightly indeterminate status of the working group now is definitely
> not the time to be adding work items, even small ones :)

Yes, sounds reasonable. Thanks. I ran into this because I wanted to
try the ontology and went ahead editing in Protege but, I believe, one
needs these changes in order to do so. I will take a closer look at
this.

Cheers,
markus

>
> Cheers,
> Dave
>

Received on Friday, 7 June 2013 10:32:09 UTC