- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:36:55 +0000
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- CC: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > Ah well, since I am cited I will reply :) > > (I guess I should say "chair hat off") (while I raise a couple of points that could be viewed as procedural rather than substantive, I prefer you to keep your chair hat off while we have a discussion - as a complete aside, I have found my own preference for hat-wearing to have resulted in a rather negative reception in a variety of places). > > To summarize, I think that Michael accurately calculates the > entailments, that these are no new surprise, and that they are a > necessary consequence of exactly the articulated trade off. In summary, > I don't see anything new in this analysis. > I am glad we agree on the facts. I don't believe these issues are stated with as much clarity in the member submission docs, or elsewhere in the WG archive, hence my sense of 'newness'. I don't know how new these issues are to the WG as a whole, but I suspect most participants are not up to speed on all logically consequences (and non-consequences) of the member submission documents. > That the current proposal does not satisfy all use cases is not > surprising. The alternative (no alternative provided) provides fewer. > I'd urge that in order to move the conversation forward, that some > concrete alternative proposals be put forward - these proposals should > at least offer increased functionality in the direction desired, should > not require new research, as that would be outside the mandate of the > charter, and provide for sound, complete, and decidable reasoning, to > provide for the user community that depends on these aspects of OWL DL. > By default, in a WG trying to provide a relatively small revision on an established specification, the alternative to making a change is to make no change. This is HP's preferred option here: i.e. no change from OWL 1.0: punning prohibited in OWL DL (at least in the RDF form); when a uri is used, this takes you into OWL Full, and each URI denotes one thing. I point to charter text in favour of this position: [[ For each new feature, if there is doubt or a perceived problem with respect to this issue, the guideline should be to not include the feature ]] and [[ The existing compatibility between OWL DL and OWL Full should be preserved ]] both of which seem to me to be directly applicable to punning, and to argue in favour of the HP preference. Jeremy
Received on Friday, 2 November 2007 16:37:31 UTC