- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 11:49:14 +0100
- To: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Begin forwarded message: > From: "Jeremy Carroll" <jeremy@topquadrant.com> > Date: 2 April 2009 15:07:40 BDT > To: "'Ian Horrocks'" <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk> > Subject: RE: [LC response] To Jeremy Carroll > > > More time please. > > Jeremy > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ian Horrocks [mailto:ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk] >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:08 PM >> To: Jeremy Carroll >> Cc: public-owl-comments@w3.org >> Subject: [LC response] To Jeremy Carroll >> >> Dear Jeremy, >> >> Thank you for your comment >> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/ >> 2009Jan/0051.html> >> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts. >> >> We will deal with your specific comments regarding the various >> documents in a separate email. In this email we will address your >> more general remarks regarding motivation. In particular, you claim >> that "The rationale document (and the design) has not taken into >> account the cost of new features particularly to those who do not >> need them". We note, however, that the story you use to illustrate >> this claim applies equally well to OWL DL and OWL Full and to OWL1 >> with OWL Lite. For syntax, one could have ontologies published in >> Turtle, NTriples, Manchester Syntax, etc. Furthermore, one could >> point to extensions like Protege's extensions for QCRs and user >> defined datatypes and, for that matter, OWL 1.1 and even current >> versions of OWL. >> >> Thus, we do not believe that the story gives new information or a new >> perspective. One of the goals of OWL 2 from the beginning was to >> reduce or eliminate, as much as possible, these costs by producing a >> standard new version to converge on. We believe the overall >> advantages and, especially, the new clarity of the specification will >> make it easier for tool developers to cope with real world ontologies >> and for new tool developers to enter the market. Furthermore, the >> working group has continually worked to mitigate the transition >> costs. OWL 2 deliberately avoids radical new features (such as non- >> monotonic features, or an entirely new, stratified metamodeling >> system, or fuzzy extensions). Even features that are well understood >> and have strong utility and demand were dropped or weakened in >> response to the sorts of analyses you ask for, e.g., property punning >> or required n-ary data predicates. >> >> Returning to the motivation for new language features, the New >> Features and Rationale document (NF&R) [1] is being extended to >> better document the motivation for the new features of OWL 2. We >> should also mention that NF&R should be read in conjunction with the >> OWL Use Cases and Requirements document [2], which already motivates >> some of these new features, e.g., extended annotations. The make up >> of the OWL working group is indicative of broad support for OWL 2, >> not just from academia but also from industry, and we also received >> many supportive comments in response to the call for review (see >> [3]). Finally, your own comment expresses support for several of the >> new features, including qualified cardinality constraints, property >> chain inclusion axioms, (unary) datatypes, annotations and profiles. >> >> Finally, you questioned the role of OWLED and its representativeness >> w.r.t. the OWL community. The current wording of the Overview of the >> New Features and Requirements mentions several underpinnings of the >> new features of OWL 2. Only part of this experience came through the >> OWLED workshops from 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008DC, and only part of >> that influenced the OWL member submission. There is desire for the >> new features of OWL 2, and implementation experience as well. The >> long-term business viability of OWL 2 remains to be determined, of >> course, but the working group believes that there is sufficient >> evidence to proceed. >> >> In view of the above, the OWL WG does not intend to make any changes >> to the design of OWL 2 in response to your comment. >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/New_Features_and_Rationale >> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req/ >> [3] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Support >> >> >> Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl- >> comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should suffice). In your >> acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied >> with the working group's response to your comment. >> >> Regards, >> Ian Horrocks >> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group >> > >
Received on Friday, 3 April 2009 10:50:13 UTC