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: Alan Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:48:26 -0400
Message-ID: <487FB01A.5010908@oracle.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, public-owl-wg@w3.org, Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>


> >
> >         So we need to figure out what evidence will help us figure out
> > who's more right. (I don't think there is a clear, unchallangable
> > "right" here, but many factors to be weighed.[skip]
> >
> We may decide to leave things as they are, put an editor's note into 
> the  document about the possible change and publish a new Working 
> Draft with that additional note, asking for explicit feedback from the 
> community. That is what the public review process is made for...
> Ivan
Given the fact that there has been so much debate on this topic, I think 
Ivan's suggestion is very good and
it is going to be very helpful to seek feedback from the community.

> B.t.w, there seems to be a side issue of Boris' proposal that affects
> implementations, too. If I want to be really compliant OWL-R in the
> proposed new approach, I am supposed to implement the check, just as you
> describe above. While I could (and I did) implement OWL-R-Full easily
> and quickly on top of an existing RDF environment, doing the backward
> mapping to functional syntax and check the result against OWL-R-DL is a
> non-trivial extra work on implementers...
I agree with this extra-work argument from an implementer's perspective.


Received on Thursday, 17 July 2008 20:51:05 UTC

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