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

RE: ISSUE-133 (una in dl-lite): DL-Lite Profile modified to include UNA

From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 13:48:41 +0100
To: "'OWL Working Group WG'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000801c8e0f8$f4149540$7212a8c0@wolf>

Hello,

I completely agree that easy keys, as defined right now, don't do anything in DL-Lite, and I share your sentiment. Note, however,
that true easy keys (without UNA) will never be compatible with DL-Lite, as they invariably lead to recursion (which makes queries
not first-order reducible). The only reason why easy keys work with the current DL-Lite is because they don't do anything. Thus, I
believe we're a bit stuck there...

Regards,

	Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of OWL Working
> Group Issue Tracker
> Sent: 08 July 2008 13:15
> To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
> Subject: ISSUE-133 (una in dl-lite): DL-Lite Profile modified to include UNA
> 
> 
> 
> ISSUE-133 (una in dl-lite): DL-Lite Profile modified to include UNA
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/
> 
> Raised by: Michael Smith
> On product:
> 
> >From email archived at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0147.html
> 
> 
> In a series of edits to the profile doc ?on 2008-05-14, SameIndividual
> axioms were removed from the DL-Lite profile, and the UNA was added
> along with functional property axioms.  I'd like these changes to be
> discussed by the WG, perhaps with comment on why they were initially
> made without discussion.
> 
> My opinion -- influenced largely by discussions at F2F2 -- is that (1)
> SameIndividual axioms are a more desirable feature than functional
> properties and (2) a profile of OWL with the UNA is problematic.
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2008 12:50:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:05 UTC