Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131)

Hi Boris,

I must admit I do feel a bit uncomfortable with this. My unease is not
on the technical aspect but more on the 'messaging' side.

What the proposal amounts to is to say that if I am an RDF user who uses 
OWL-R, and I happen to use, say, the RDF List vocabulary, then I am not 
in any official profile of OWL in spite of the fact that the rule set of 
OWL-R work perfectly well. On the other hand, if I do not use the List 
vocabulary then I am ok. For an RDF+OWL-R user this restriction may seem 
fairly arbitrary.

For vendors announcements it would look at bit unclear, too. What would
they announce as part of their product description? That they implement 
OWL-R? But would that mean that, strictly speaking, they should reject 
an RDF Graph using the List vocabulary? If they don't reject those then, 
in fact, they do not implement OWL-R but an unnamed, unofficial, though 
well defined OWL profile. With the current setup they could clearly 
announce that what they implement is OWL-R-Full which is then well 
referenced and defined.

I wonder whether the advantages you describe below outweigh the 
disadvantages of not having a clear reference to a profile that both 
users and vendors can refer to. I have my doubts.

Ivan

Boris Motik wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Yes, some RDF Graphs will be syntactically outside the OWL-R fragment. The rules can still operate on such graphs, but this might
> result in missing consequences that would be intuitively expected; in this case it can be seen as an incomplete implementation of
> OWL Full. Advantages include streamlining the definition of OWL-R, making profiles in general much cleaner and easier to understand,
> and obviating the need for owl:intendedProfile.
> 
> Regards,
> 
>  Boris
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ivan Herman
>> Sent: 11 July 2008 11:43
>> To: Boris Motik
>> Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131)
>>
>> Boris,
>>
>> I do not see how this answers the questions I had in
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0093.html
>>
>> Isn't it correct that this approach will make some RDF Graphs formally
>> incorrect OWL-R graphs (even if the rules can handle them without any
>> problems)?
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>> Boris Motik wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Here is a possible way of going forward with ISSUE-131.
>>>
>>> - We add to the introduction of the Profiles document a definition of what it means for an RDF
>> graph G to be an instance of profile
>>> P:
>>>
>>> "Let G be an RDF graph closed w.r.t. imports. G is a P-ontology if the triples in G can be parsed
>> into an ontology in structural
>>> specification that satisfies the grammar given in the profile specification for P".
>>>
>>> - We change Section 4 to talk only about OWL-R, and not about OWL-R DL and OWL-R Full.
>>>
>>> - We rename Section 4.2 to "Profile Specification".
>>>
>>> - We delete Section 4.3.1.
>>>
>>> - We rename Section 4.3.2 into Section 4.3 and call it "Reasoning in OWL-R and RDF Graphs using
>> Rules".
>>> - In current Section 4.4, we already have a statement that, for OWL-R ontologies, describes the
>> consequences that these rules
>>> produce. In the end of this section, however, we would add the following sentence:
>>>
>>> "The rules from Section 4.3 can be applied to arbitrary RDF graphs, in which case the produced
>> consequences are sound but not
>>> necessarily complete."
>>>
>>> Please let me know how you feel about this.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>  Boris
>>>
>>>
>> --
>>
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
> 
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf