Re: ISSUE-111 Proposal to Resolve

This sounds reasonable to me -- I was wondering where we should put  
this advice, and Primer seems the best place.


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
> Tetherless World Constellation Chair
> Computer Science Dept
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180

Received on Wednesday, 20 August 2008 12:29:19 UTC