- From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:10:58 +0100
- To: "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Cc: "Matthew Pocock" <matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, "Owl Dev" <public-owl-dev@w3.org>, "Ian Horrocks" <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Hi Jim! Jim Hendler wrote: ><flame on - but not at Matthew> >-but I note also that there are many widely used KR features >lefts out of OWL because the WG either does not have consensus >on how to define, or apparently, now things are left out if >they aren't decidable in OWL DL (I note the most used OWL >feature of any ontology to date, the inversefunctional email >sha-sum of FOAF, would not have been accepted under this rule) So this would be an InverseFunctionalDataProperty (IFDP), which indeed is not in the current OWL-1.1-DL draft. But I want to note that, AFAICS, this topic is really considered to be a serious topic by several people: * There is an OWLED taskforce dedicated to this topic: <http://code.google.com/p/owl1-1/wiki/DatabasEsque> * Bijan had a report on the current state of the discussion, starting with <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2007JulSep/0211.html> (but I'm afraid this discussion got a bit lost at this time...) * There have been slides by Uli at the WG's F2F which cover this topic: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Dec/0088.html> * Uli has made a pragmatical proposal for IFDPs in <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Dec/0035.html> I cannot do more than just pointing you to these resources, because I am pretty much behind in this topic. >-- there are lots of such examples Part/whole being the >obvious it is used in the gene and OBO ontologies, and in >most of the scientific ontologies I've seen for physics, >astronomy, and geology - but the OWL 1.0 WG punted on it and >the OWL 1.1 hasn't even considered it. I think "part/whole" would have to be either a property characteristic, or there would have to be a dedicated property with the "part/whole" semantics, from which more specific properties would have to be sub properties. I wouldn't have a good feeling for both of these options, because I do not see that "part/whole" is always understood in the same way in all possible situations. For example, sometimes I will regard something as a part of itself, and sometimes not. And sometimes I will regard a "part/whole" relation to be transitive, and sometimes this sounds absurd to me. And I may or may not find it natural to regard a specific "part/whole" relation in connection with another semantic relation like "owns". After all, OWL-1.1 gives me at least some formal tools to model my own "part/whole" relation. For example: * isPartOf a owl:TransitiveObjectProperty ("if a is part of b, and b is part of c, then a is part of c") * isPartOf a owl:AsymmetricObjectProperty ("if a is part of b, then b is *not* part of a") * isPartOf o hasOwner <= hasOwner (a sub property chain: "parts of things owned by X are themself owned by X") I'm afraid that not everything, which might make sense, is actually possible to model. For instance, I cannot model antisymmetrical relations at the moment. But the situation has much improved compared to OWL-1.0. > I'd like to see the WG >being a bit more consistent with respect to deciding what will >and will not be used. I see the current 1.1 design as >something of a hodgepodge, with KR considerations being far >more weighted than other issues - decidability has become a >requirement (without any rewrite of the requirements document >that I ca find) This is the heretic "Consider slaughtering the holy decidability cow!" discussion I have tried to start two times in the past: * <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2007OctDec/0142.html> * <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2007OctDec/0170.html> But I want to make it clear that this was never meant by me to be a topic for the current OWL-1.1 WG. As I understand it, it was the idea for this WG to build a robust incremental update to OWL-1.0. And I believe that carelessly making OWL-1.1 undecidable may easily make it unusable, or at least it may result in unpredictable effects later in real-life use. I believe that a lot of research has to be done before it will be possible to come up with an undecidable OWL-DL successor which works well in practice. That's simply out of scope for the current WG, but it might perhaps be an interesting topic for future OWLED workshops!? >and people are doing what I see as very >arrogant, such as people telling the Oracle rep what it is >that his customers should want - rather than listening to >Oracle explain what Oracle needs and wants ><flame off> > >sorry had to get that off my chest > -JH Regards, Michael -- Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik Karlsruhe Abtl. Information Process Engineering (IPE) Tel : +49-721-9654-726 Fax : +49-721-9654-727 Email: Michael.Schneider@fzi.de Web : http://www.fzi.de/ipe/eng/mitarbeiter.php?id=555 FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959 Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe Vorstand: Rüdiger Dillmann, Michael Flor, Jivka Ovtcharova, Rudi Studer Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
Received on Monday, 17 December 2007 15:11:23 UTC