- From: Christian Halaschek-Wiener <christian@clados.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 07:42:51 -0700
- To: "'Ian Horrocks'" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: <public-owl-comments@w3.org>, "'OWL 1.1'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <006801c8eb40$0e2d1910$2a874b30$@com>
Hi Ian, Thank you for your feedback. I completely understand the working group's concern that having too many profiles may end up confusing potential users. Further, while we have clear internal use cases for Horn-SHIQ, given the nature of our business it would be quite difficult for me to talk about them in such a public setting. This said, thank you again for your feedback and best of luck with the working group. Cheers, Chris -- Christian Halaschek-Wiener, Ph.D. Chief Technology Officer Clados Management LLC From: Ian Horrocks [mailto:horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 5:57 AM To: Christian Halaschek-Wiener Cc: public-owl-comments@w3.org; OWL 1.1 Subject: Re: OWL 2 Profiles and Horn-SHIQ Dear Christian, When discussing fragments (now called profiles) the OWL Working Group decided that having too many different profiles might be confusing to potential users of OWL, and that we should therefore try to limit the number of profiles and only describe those for which (a) there is a clear user requirement; (b) there is sufficient implementer support; (c) there are significant distinguishing characteristics (e.g., computational or implementational) w.r.t. other profiles. The WG is not aware of strong user requirements or implementer support for Horn-SHIQ, and it's characteristics seem to be quite similar to those of the OWL-R profile. If you would like the WG to reconsider, could you provide additional information about Horn-SHIQ that addresses the above points. Regards, Ian Horrocks Co-Chair, W3C OWL Working Group On 30 May 2008, at 18:14, Christian Halaschek-Wiener wrote: Greetings, I'm with an investment firm currently using OWL for a variety of purposes internally within our company (some of you know me previously from my time spent in Jim's Mindswap research group at UMD). We're very interested in the work the group is doing on defining tractable subsets/profiles of OWL 2, as performance guarantees are very important for our usage. I recently happened to notice that one of the original member submissions related to tractable fragments [1] included Horn-SHIQ. While being syntactically restricted and having intractable taxonomic complexity, this fragment is interesting to us because it provides modeling constructs not possible with the current profiles defined in [2] (e.g., simultaneous usage of existential quantification, inverse & transitive roles, etc.) and still has tractable data complexity. I was wondering if there were specific reasons why this profile is not currently included in the latest working draft? Thanks for any insight or clarity the group can provide. Cheers, Chris [1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/owl11-tractable/ [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/ -- Christian Halaschek-Wiener, Ph.D. Chief Technology Officer Clados Management LLC
Received on Monday, 21 July 2008 14:43:41 UTC