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

Re: ISSUE-111 Proposal to Resolve

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:35:59 -0400
Cc: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, public-owl-wg Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FE9C711E-F04D-4AF7-A8E4-113FE5AD7F87@cs.rpi.edu>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>

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.

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:51 UTC