Re: OWL FULL or DL?

> I don't have to justify myself and give names. I am reporting what I
> hear from discussions on different reflectors dated yesterday (not
> browsing all chats).

I don't ask to justify yourself, I'm asking for clarifications. What is 
_your_ problem with OWL Full?

> If people have concerns about the compatibility of OWL FULL, that's
> enough for me to ring a bell.

Compatibility for what? Sure we can read/write/exchange/query OWL Full 
ontologies without any problems. Answer to this question depends on what 
is your application scenario. What would be the purpose of the OWL Full 
ontology

> I need  more than what you said to
> reassure me on the choice (although as I inferred in my previous mail
> some OWL FULL features are attractive).

You're just rediscovering a debate which is here since 6 years ... and 
people have moved on since.

> What would tell me that OWL FULL is well supported? References
> please...

Supported for what?
   - editing? sure ... and stop believing that what Protégé cannot 
support is inconsistent with the spec. Since when a single tool = a 
formal spec? And by the way, to be pedantic, you're _not_ talking about 
Protégé in your previous emails ... you're talking about Protégé with 
the default, now built-in, OWL DL plugin. Protégé is frame-based and 
quite agnostic to this debate.
   - querying? sure ... everything is triples
   - reasoning? sure ... there are corner cases that will make your 
ontology falling into the undecidable complexity, but we cannot judge 
this without seeing your usage of the OWL Full features, and in 
particular if this is limited to punning.
So what are _your_ issues ? if any!

   Raphaël

-- 
Raphaël Troncy
EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department
2229, route des Crêtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France.
e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242
Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/

Received on Wednesday, 22 September 2010 11:36:41 UTC