Re: Profiles intro

Bijan Parsia wrote:
> 
> It is really nice (as far as I'm concerned), but I think we can 
> anticipate some negative comment about the emphasis on the 
> "tractability" POV (e.g., from Jim Hendler). And, after all, 
> computational efficiency is a necessary, not sufficient, condition for 
> inclusion.   
> 

+1. No, +100...:-)

What I am looking for are statements that make it clear in which 
circumstances I would choose one profile over the other (even if I have 
no idea of the implementation details, nor do I want to deal with 
those). The fact that it can be implemented in polynomial time or 
whatever is only one (albeit important) aspect. I have heard arguments 
that say "if your ontology has a simple structure, but have a large 
abox, then use DL-Lite"; I am looking for things like that. The fact 
that a specific profile _can_ be implemented via cheaper means is not 
enough, in my view, to be defined as a _standard_ profile, and the 
current document certainly reads that way...

I could imagine that a more detailed argumentation should (probably 
must...) be given in more details in the primer, but some of these 
should be added, I believe, in the profile document, too.

(AlanR actually made an attempt in the past[1] to gather arguments, but 
that should probably be reformulated)

Ivan

[1] http://www.w3.org/mid/CEFF86FB-D70A-4DC4-9D14-627841E3644B@gmail.com

> It seems to me that we could expand this section with some discussion of 
> the intended "Best fit task" for each fragment (some of which is already 
> in the specific sections), or we could have that discussion in the 
> primer and leave this document more implementation oriented.
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf