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

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

From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 23:46:20 +0100
To: "'Ivan Herman'" <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001301c8e471$1bf09c50$0200a8c0@wolf>

Hello Ivan,

I see many advantages to the proposed unification of OWL-R:

- Having only one OWL-R profile should be less confusing for implementers and users.

- An OWL-R implementation can also claim to handle OWL Full (although without the completeness guarantees).

- The syntactic definition can be used to inform users whether or not these guarantees hold for a given ontology.

- Implementations can support a larger fragment of OWL Full without becoming incorrect for OWL-R.

- An OWL Full implementation *is* an OWL-R implementation.

- No need for owl:intendedProfile.

Under the current profile definition, if implementers add functionality beyond OWL-R, as they might want to do, then their
implementation would be strictly speaking incorrect for OWL-R Full.

Regards,

	Boris


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ivan Herman
> Sent: 12 July 2008 09:47
> To: Boris Motik
> Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
> Subject: 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
Received on Saturday, 12 July 2008 22:48:02 UTC

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