W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > September 2010


From: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:05:35 +0200
To: 'Raphaël Troncy' <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
CC: 'Yves Raimond' <yves.raimond@gmail.com>, Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7D1656F54141C042A1B2556AE5237D60010CEEB7F27F@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>
I regret that _YOU_ want to make this personal (not quite surprised though).

I don't have a problem with FULL as I have mentioned some features I find interesting. You must have had a biased reading as I took care of not taking position although mentioning interest for FULL. 

I have not said that what protégé cannot support is inconsistent with the specification. Read the thread again. Protégé is DL and therefore doesn't claim compatibility with FULL.  I just noted it but didn't question it and also didn't draw any such conclusion.

The point I made is disconnected from this as although this is a old debate it seems there are still doubts on what should preferably be used for operational implementation.  This is a question for which I have much more sympathy than floating in cyberspace using 'cool' tools.  I am trying to bring this into production and "loose funny features and concepts" are insufficient to convince implementers.

It took me six months to come where it seems it took you six years (or more) to only make that sort of comments. _I_ don't feel like if I know everything even if I have already strong views and feelings on what's right or wrong. Still you neither said anything I didn't know nor brought a convincing argument in favour of FULL.

With all due respect ;-)


-----Original Message-----
From: Raphaël Troncy [mailto:raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr] 
Sent: mercredi, 22. septembre 2010 13:32
To: Evain, Jean-Pierre
Cc: 'Yves Raimond'; Tobias Bürger; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: 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 

> 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 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 13:06:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:24:43 UTC