- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 11:04:57 +0200
- To: Carsten Lutz <clu@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de>
- CC: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <47FC86B9.6080007@w3.org>
Carsten, and I understand very well that these things are complicated... And the error I made on my example just shows how difficult that is:-( However... eventually we do need a kind of an 'elevator pitch', ie, a short, clear, and not-too-detailed argument for end-users when and why they would use one profile over the other. In some ways, we had that for OWL-Full and DL: I know, it can be discussed at nauseam, it is not precise, and tastes differ a lot, but I remembered Dan Brickley saying something like: - Some application just need to express and interchange terms (with possible scruffiness): OWL Full is fine - Some applications need rigor and complex term classification with a guarantee offered by reasoning procedures; then OWL DL/Lite might be the good choice which is good enough for the lambda SW application developer. Let us try to agree upon some of these... Ivan Carsten Lutz wrote: > On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Ivan Herman wrote: >> >> 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 agree and certainly don't consider the intro finished. The purpose > of my changes was only to have an intro that can be published at the > end of this week, and I think the current one can. (the action on me > was to put the explanations of the three fragments that I had in my > OWLED slides, and I did even more than that). > > An issue with the other aspects of fragments is that they are difficult > to formulate without raising controversy. Let's take your example: > >> I have heard arguments that say "if your ontology has a simple >> structure, but have a large abox, then use DL-Lite"; > > I am not totally happy with this formulation, and I guess Zhe is even > less so: > > - I am uncomfortable with the "ontology has a simple structure part", > because EL++ is also targeted at ontologies of a simple structure and > can also handle ABoxes, whereas I conceive DL-Lite as a constraint > language rather than an ontology language. > > - I suppose Zhe won't like the "large ABox" part, because ontologies > with a simple structure and large data is precisely what OWL-R is > also made for. > > My aim here is not to discuss these issues, but only to point out that > it may by hard to find general rules of the kind that you imagine. > >> 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. > > I agree, but we have to be careful. > > greetings, > Carsten > > -- > * Carsten Lutz, Institut f"ur Theoretische Informatik, TU > Dresden * > * Office phone:++49 351 46339171 > mailto:lutz@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de * -- 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
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2008 09:06:06 UTC