W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > August 2008

Re: ISSUE-111 Proposal to Resolve

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:50:55 +0100
Message-Id: <508EB70F-3E67-4C12-AAE3-A475757E77B6@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: public-owl-wg Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>

The proposal *is* that there would be no specified way to signal the  
intended semantics, so tools would have their choice. Thus I'm not  
sure why you don't like it. Perhaps I didn't explain it very well (in  
my defence I should say that I was only trying for a very quick  
summary of the cited discussions).

The idea is to include only the advice/observation that including a  
triple that takes the ontology out of OWL DL obviously forces it to  
be interpreted using the RDF semantics, with "sameAs sameAs sameAs"  
being given as an example of such a triple (I should have said "for  
example" instead of "namely").


On 8 Aug 2008, at 17:33, Jim Hendler wrote:

> 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 Tuesday, 12 August 2008 08:39:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:50 UTC