W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2009

Re: Rationales for OWL 2 new features

From: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:22:12 +0100
Cc: cgolbrei@gmail.com, public-owl-wg@w3.org, ewallace@cme.nist.gov
Message-Id: <FA8D3EA5-8BC6-4D93-BB24-A312F44411BD@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

On 29 Apr 2009, at 19:57, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> Several new features that were not in the initial list of new features
> have been added to NF&R recently to make NF&R comprehensive.
> Unfortunately, this highlights the fact that these new features do not
> have the same level of rationale as the other new features.
> These new features are:
> - data range boolean combinations
> - datatype definitions
> - annotation property axioms (subproperty, domain, range)
> - top and bottom properties
> - anonymous individuals
> - inverse properties
> None of these features have the same level of rationale as the initial
> list of new features but some of them have some rationale in NF&R.   
> The
> WG should probably ensure that each of these features does have an
> adequate rationale in NF&R.
> My suggestion is that whoever was behind each of these features (You
> should remember who you are!) should be responsible for determining
> whether the rationale in NF&R is adequate and producing a message to  
> the
> WG so indicating or producing some rationale to put in NF&R.  It would
> be best if these rationales were not technical rationales.
> peter
> PS:  Here are my initial thoughts on which of these features have
> adequate rationale:
> data range boolean combinations	no - no rationale or example

follows 'naturally' from the next one

> datatype definitions			no - no rationale or example

ease of writing/reading/maintaining ontologies: for datatypes that  
occur a couple of times (like adult-age, legal-driving-age)

> annotation property axioms		no - except for subproperty
> top and bottom properties		no - no rationale or example

they had one, possibly technical: it was deemed to be useful since you  
can then 'hang' property hierarchies from the top property like you  
can do with class hierarchies...

> anonymous individuals			maybe - technical argument
> inverse properties			maybe - technical argument

ease of writing ontologies: if you can't think of a name for an  
inverse, you can use the inverse operator

Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2009 19:22:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:58 UTC