Re: Proposal to resolve issue-107 deprecate OWL Lite

Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> 
> I propose we close this issue saying we will not deprecate OWL Lite. 
> There is no need to, as OWL Lite ontologies are OWL 2 ontologies, and we 
> seem to have come to consensus that we will say little more about OWL 
> Lite, in the OWL 2 documentation, than that.
> 
> -Alan
> 
> 


Speaking personally, and unaware of an HP view either way, ...

I will make the argument for deprecating OWL Lite.

1) Deprecation does not mean that OWL Lite is wrong, or fundamentally 
broken, simply that it isn't useful, and OWL users would be better off 
not thinking of it as an option.

2) Deprecation usually involves sugegsting a migration path.
e.g.
[[
    OWL Lite users are advised to:
    a) use OWL DL
    b) use DL Lite
    c) use OWL-R DL
    d) use EL++
    depending on the specifics of their ontology.
]]

3) A statement that we have decided not to carry the OWL Lite design 
through into OWL 2, and we do not expect it to be in future versions of 
OWL seems to be an honest truth - deprecating OWL Lite is no more than 
saying that.

================

As far as I can see, such a statement would reflect by far the majority 
of the WG, and the majority of the field.

I would like to hear the advocates of not deprecating OWL Lite, state 
why someone should use OWL Lite in preference to these options. 
Otherwise I think the WG is just being a bit cowardly.

We do a greater service to the community calling a spade a spade, than 
we do by avoiding a small argument.

As far as I can tell, OWL Lite was a mistake, and is not useful, and is 
confusing, and the new profiles are better motivated, and thought 
through. OWL Lite suffered design by committee, whereas the new profiles 
are essentially being ratified by committee with minor design change, 
which is a more successful approach.

If this proposal is made this week, I will abstain. I would hope that an 
excessive number of abstentions would result in the issue remaining 
open. (It would be strange for people to feel so strongly as to want to 
vote against not-deprecating).

Jeremy

Received on Monday, 28 April 2008 14:09:43 UTC