- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:44:00 -0400
- To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, public-owl-wg Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Ian - sameAs^3, if made "THE" thing to use would solve the problem, it would just be very counterintuitive to real users -- I see no advantage over adding some small semantics free declarative to OWL Full documents (and remember it is only OWL Full) - and, I'm sorry, maybe you see me as being unreasonable, but I simply don't see any way I can sign on to the current proposal -- Look, let me put it this way - you will not convince my organization that the sameAs^3 solution (esp. as curently set up where any error signals an intent) is a good one. We can go back and forth as much as you want, but my organization won't agree to the current closing text I know you don't like discussion of W3C process, but basically, going back and forth on this won't get us anywhere, you and I simply disagree - since you're involved in the discussion, Alan should either schedule a vote or propose an alternative and then we can move on - not every WG member needs to agree with everything, and I've stated my objection for the WG to consider so I've been treated fairly -JH On Aug 18, 2008, at 4:13 PM, Ian Horrocks wrote: > 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). > > Ian > > > >> 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 http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler >> Tetherless World Constellation Chair >> Computer Science Dept >> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180 >> >> >> >> > "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, 19 August 2008 13:44:54 UTC