Re: Issue-114

On Jun 30, 2008, at 5:25 PM, Bijan Parsia wrote:
> Sure there has.
> 	1) To handle more RDF graphs. (class/property punning is in OWL  
> Full, with exactly the same semantics.)

Could we see some examples of this usage in the wild? I have been  
asked that re: the ID-based reification and am in the process of  
collecting examples.

> 	2) To handle various integration/alignment situations.

Could you please be more specific about what these situations are? If  
we are going to base decisions on such I would like to have something  
that we can think about.

> Furthermore, these are already in and in OWL2 implementations.

So are there bugs. Shall we include those in the spec as well?

>> It may be bad practice, but is is requested. To the extent that we  
>> are chartered to provide features that have been identified by  
>> users as widely needed,
> Actually, I don't see that we're chartered to do that:

> """The mission of the OWL Working Group, part of the Semantic Web  
> Activity, is to produce a W3C Recommendation that refines and  
> extends OWL. The proposed extensions are a small set that:"""

Interesting point to cut the quote. Note the similarity of point 1 in  
what immediately follows to what I wrote (no accident that ;-)

> 1. have been identified by users as widely needed, and
> 2. have been identified by tool implementers as reasonable and  
> feasible extensions to current tools.

> The starting point is OWL 1.1. I think we should deviate from  
> included features that have been interoperably implemented only  
> when there are clear and strong arguments against them.

I have never understood this point of view. The OWL 1.1 submission  
was one of several starting points. It is the working group that  
defines the features of OWL 2, without any presumption to default  
acceptance of any of the inputs.


Received on Monday, 30 June 2008 22:08:00 UTC