W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > December 2007

Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-55

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 16:07:51 -0500
Message-Id: <0838E506-C569-4A5F-BA71-7D702FF59A12@gmail.com>
Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Hi Peter,

I think this one is relevant in the context of the straw poll at the  
workshop, in which there was unanimous support for us looking at how  
to have more RDF usable within OWL tools. I took that as interest in,  
e.g.  possibly having a working group note that explicitly listed a  
set of recommended repairs.

In the context of this interest, the issue of rdfs:Class and  
owl:Class is certainly relevent, though perhaps not as phrased in  
this issue.

I could see closing this issue and opening a new one, or amending the  
current one to reflect the discussion at the meeting. Do you have a  
preference as to which way we should do this?


On Dec 13, 2007, at 4:23 PM, Jim Hendler wrote:

> CLosing an issue should include some text about how the issue has  
> been closed - i.e. the resolution - I'd be willing to close this  
> (actually Postpone would be my preference) when we have a proposed  
> closing text.  As we've seen, this one is important and often asked  
> - so we need to have something explicit and definitive that we can  
> point people to.
> On Dec 13, 2007, at 11:16 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> This issue asks to reconsider the distinction between owl:Class and
>> rdfs:Class.
>> There have already been several emails, including
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Nov/0258.html
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Nov/0263.html
>> that explain why merging owl:Class and rdfs:Class makes changes to
>> ontologies and thus is not something that is suitable for OWL.
>> The current situation is that several tools can perform this repair,
>> although they do not guarantee that the semantics of the ontology is
>> unchanged.
>> I believe that there has been adequate discussion and that the  
>> issue can
>> be closed.
>> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>> Bell Labs Research
> "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research,  
> would it?." - Albert Einstein
> Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
> Tetherless World Constellation Chair
> Computer Science Dept
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180

Received on Sunday, 16 December 2007 00:26:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:41 UTC