Re: intendedProfile (proposal for ISSUE-111)

> On 21 May 2008, at 20:29, Boris Motik wrote:
> [snip intended consequence relation stuff]
> That works for me.

Me too. 

> > I do agree that, from a practical point of view, one might want to  
> > stipulate that an ontology has been designed as, say, an EL++
> > ontology. We have two possibilities for handling this:
> >
> > - We might recognize that this is an orthogonal concern to the  
> > choice of the consequence relation. Therefore, we might add a
> > different annotation property called, say, owl:syntacticFragment.
> >
> > - We might introduce owl:EL++, owl:DL-Lite, and owl:OWL-R-DL, but  
> > say that they are, from the point of view of the consequence
> > relation, equivalent to owl:DL. We should then say that we merged  
> > the actually orthogonal concerns of selecting the consequence
> > relation and providing hints into one construct due to practical  
> > reasons.
> Either of these is fine with me, so is deferring that. It'd be  
> interesting to get some wider feedback. One way to do that is to put  
> a design in the spec and make it prominent. Another is to ask around :)

I think the combined form is going to be easier for users, but I agree
it's good to point out how it is combined.

I believe this identifier is essentially the same as RIF's second
parameter on "import", which is used to import OWL with DL-style or
Full-style semantics, and to specify which level of entailment is
desired [1].  (That parameter will function as a default, for the case
where this ontology property is not present and OWL1 in general.)  

This means RIF needs to pick URIs for these in the next week or two.
The namespace in that draft is
"", but if OWL is going to use
the same identifiers, we probably want something different.  Also, when
it says "OWL-DL" it means OWL1 DL.  Is that just a syntactic fragment of
OWL2 DL, or are there different semantics?

    - Sandro


Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2008 22:27:28 UTC