- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:28:39 +0100
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, public-owl-wg Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
This sounds reasonable to me -- I was wondering where we should put this advice, and Primer seems the best place. Ian On 19 Aug 2008, at 19:35, Jim Hendler wrote: > 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 Wednesday, 20 August 2008 12:29:19 UTC