- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 12:33:10 -0400
- To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-owl-wg Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Having left the WG, I seem to still be being pulled in a lot by side emails, so let me state, as RPI AC rep, that we don't like this solution. I see two problems 1 - it seems to us that people who use DL are more likely to understand the difference between DL and Full than those who are just using the vocabulary, so the chances of this triple being included seem very low - thus, we'd prefer to see someone who understands that they want to be only DL should have to do something to signal that 2 - by this decision, if a user accidently does something to make their ontology OWL Full, they will be signaling they only want to be in Full (since it says "should include a triple that takes the ontology out of OWL DL") -- if the meaning is that we want users to use only this specific triple, then it seems to me we should do something more obvious, like putting in some semantics free definition that expresses intent -- i.e. instead of "sameAs sameAs sameAs" wouldn't it be a lot smarter for the document to include "[] intendedUse OWL-Full"? In fact, given these two factors, it seems like we should either have explicit means for signaling semantics when intended, or no specified way, meaning tools have their choice. -JH AC Rep, RPI On Aug 8, 2008, at 11:31 AM, Ian Horrocks wrote: > > As per discussions and strawpolls at the Boston F2F [1] and our most > recent telecon [2], I propose that we close this issue by adding to > the spec the advice that users wanting to ensure that their ontology > is interpreted *only* as OWL Full should include a triple that takes > the ontology out of OWL DL, namely: > > sameAs sameAs sameAs . > > Regards, > Ian > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-07-28#Strawpoll_on_signaling_semantics > [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-08-06#Strawpoll_on_resolving_issue__2d_111 > "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 Friday, 8 August 2008 16:33:51 UTC