- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:35:59 -0400
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, public-owl-wg Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
RPI would be willing to abstain from a resolution such as Bijan proposes below, i.e. 1 - the issue is closed with no change to the langauge 2 - the OWL Full document does not mention sameAs^3 3 - the primer contains language such as Bijan suggests (i.e. the sameAs^3 can be there) Our main objection is to this being in the primary language definition for OWL Full where, we believe, it would be seen as a piece of improper language design rather than as advice to specific users. -JH On Aug 19, 2008, at 12:45 PM, Bijan Parsia wrote: > > On 19 Aug 2008, at 17:25, Jim Hendler wrote: > >> Ian, I apologize, I didn't mean to imply anything was wrong >> >> I think by now you have seen my email with two possible ways >> forward -a specific "tag" or,my preference, a decision not to >> include any such wording. >> >> Bijan, I don't agree it is just editorial since this whole >> discussion came up in response to an issue and we need to resolve >> to close that issue as a wg. > > Oh. I thought there were two different things: > > RESOLVED: Close with no change to the language (i.e., no additional > mechanism). > > Editorial: Add some advice about how to make your ontologies OWL > Full if they are syntactically OWL DL without distorting the modeling. > > It seems like you agree with this resolution but would prefer not to > have the advice. I think the advice is harmless at worst. > > I see Ian's phrasing puts the two together in his original email, > but I didn't think it was meant to conceptually conflate them. > > I imagine some text like the following: > > "For the most part, when an OWL Ontology is syntactically in OWL DL, > you get the same entailments under the OWL Full or OWL DL semantics, > as long as the entailments themselves are syntactically in OWL DL. > There are a few corner cases where this is not the case, for > example, owl:Thing subClassOf oneOf{a} entails owl:Thing subClassOf > owl:Nothing in OWL Full but not in OWL DL. One can force syntactic > OWL Fullness on such ontologies by adding a syntactically OWL Full > statement that is entailed by the empty ontology (thus doesn't > otherwise change the modeling), for example, sameAs sameAs sameAs." > > I'd be happy to put something like this in the primer. I need to > explain the alignment 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
Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2008 18:36:41 UTC