- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:22:23 +0000
- To: Bernardo Cuenca Grau <bcg@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
As one of the perpetrators of DLP, I don't have anything to say in it's defence ;-) Ian On 28 Nov 2007, at 18:29, Bernardo Cuenca Grau wrote: > > My understanding of the story of DLP is similar to Carsten's. The > goal of the work was to identify the ``intersection'' between logic > programming and OWL. Of course, the meaning of ``intersection'' has > to be taken carefully since, for instance, Logic Programming and > OWL adopt different semantics. > > As it happens with other fragments, like DL-Lite, there are many > flavors of DLP. Even more, if one calls DLP any Horn-description > logic, then HORN-SHIQ could also be seen as a variant of DLP. I > must confess that the selection of the particular flavor of DLP > included in the document was rather arbitrary and was taken from a > set of papers about DLP published by the Karlsruhe people. I > wouldn't be opposed to removing DLP and keeping Horn-SHIQ, since I > am also not aware of non-toy ontology that belongs to the version > of DLP in the document, but not to Horn-SHIQ. I expect that the > people in Karlsruhe may have something to say about this issue > (Markus?) > > Bernardo > > OWL Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> ISSUE-76 (DLP): REPORTED: DLP >> >> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/ >> >> Raised by: Bijan Parsia >> On product: >> (On behalf of Carsten Lutz.) >> >> I would like to raise the question whether we really want DLP in the >> document. In my understanding, the history of DLP is as follows: >> >> - the origin was an academic exercise: to understand what one gets >> when taking the common part of logic programming and OWL >> >> - the answer was (in my very personal opinion; never mind): nothing >> very useful >> >> - ontologies written in DLP have never shown up (I am happy to >> stand corrected) >> >> - it was superceeded by Horn-SHIQ of which it is fragment (right?), >> and which is also in the document (where it is not really visible >> that DLP is a fragment of Horn-SHIQ). >> >> I can see that the connection between logic programming and OWL is >> important, for a number of reasons. Still, I feel that DLP is an odd >> fragment and that we would do better to drop it. When discussing >> Horn-SHIQ, we could still mention that the intersection of logic >> programming and OWL is contained in it. >> >> If anybody wants to make a case for DLP, go ahead. I only want to >> avoid that we include fragments that nobody really supports. >> >> >> >> >> >
Received on Sunday, 2 December 2007 15:22:35 UTC