Re: ISSUE-111 Proposal to Resolve

On 18 Aug 2008, at 17:04, Jim Hendler wrote:

> Bijan,
>  It is absolutely true as you say that if it is in OWL Full then it  
> is in OWL Full (you said it better), but the key here is we're  
> talking about when the user explicitly wants to signal that it  
> should be OWL Full -- seems to me having a very specific thing,  
> easy to find, in this particlar (and probably rare) case would make  
> everyone's lives easier -- I don't understand the reluctance, I've  
> looked at the discussion in the f2f, and it seems to mainly concern  
> general issues with signaling intent, which I mostly agree with,  
> the problem is this one specific case - and why can't we just have  
> some little piece of syntax, which is only in OWL Full, which  
> basically says "Don't expect complete/sound reasoning if you use me  
> with an OWL DL tool" - seems to me we could do something more  
> mnemonic that sameas Sameas sameAs -- and would make things easier  
> for both implementors and users

sameAs^3 seems to do exactly what you want without the need to  
introduce any new OWL RDF vocabulary, and it is at least easy to  
remember (even if not mnemonic). I'm open to suggestions, though, as  
to some other piece of OWL Full that could be used for the same  
purpose -- but remember that one of the criteria is that it should be  
vacuous (i.e., be entailed by every OWL Full ontology).


>  Guess what I'm trying to ask is what would be the downside?  I can  
> only see positive advantages as an implementor
>  -JH
> On Aug 18, 2008, at 10:48 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> On 12 Aug 2008, at 13:10, Jim Hendler wrote:
>>> OK, so supposing I'm an OWL DL user and I want to use a DL  
>>> reasoner.  I accidently, however, assert something that puts the  
>>> ontology in Full (and when we did the analysis of 1500 ontologies  
>>> 3 years ago, there were at least 100 for which this case was true  
>>> -- usually because someone referred to something from a remote  
>>> name space without adding the appropriate type or imported  
>>> something that put them into Full without their realizing it) --  
>>> so according to this, tools like Pellet, instead of "fixing"  
>>> these mistakes (heuristically) would now need to assume the  
>>> person knew what they were doing and that they want to be in Full
>> No. If an ontology is syntactically in OWL Full it is in OWL Full.  
>> This has *always* been true.
>> How to *handle* OWL Full ontologies remains, as it was then, up to  
>> the tool. Pellet performs an analysis and repair phase with  
>> reports back on the repairs performed and a strict mode. Nothing  
>> would change with that.
>>> -- so it would be rare that they want to do this on purpose, but  
>>> not rare that it would happen by accident.
>>> My point is not that I think there shoudln't be some way to do  
>>> this, but rather that it should be explicit -- otherwise we get  
>>> in a situation where tools will assume it's a mistake, and then  
>>> the user will have to do something extra to make it clear they  
>>> meant it
>>> So my argument is not that we should have some way to always  
>>> signal intended use, but that for this corner case, we should  
>>> have something unambiguous that is not likely to be used by  
>>> mistake (which is why, sameAs sameAs sameAs seems appealing)
>> I think if we give advice and follow that advice up with tools  
>> support (e.g., in the report say, "This ontology is OWL Full only  
>> in virtue of the notorious sameAs^3 triple which generally means  
>> that this is intended to be owl full. This reasoner does not  
>> support OWL Full semantics, would you like the (sound but  
>> incomplete wrt subusmption) OWL DL results anyway?"
>> Cheers,
>> Bijan.
> "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research,  
> would it?." - Albert Einstein
> Prof James Hendler
> Tetherless World Constellation Chair
> Computer Science Dept
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180

Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2008 09:56:18 UTC