- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 09:20:42 -0400
- To: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>, Pascal Hitzler <hitzler@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
>>>>>> Note that each of the profiles is a (strict) syntactic subset >>>>>> of OWL DL, but none of the profiles is a subset of another While the above is technically correct, I think that some people would miss the fact that "syntactic" subsets of OWL 2 DL is different than the fact that you must use the DL restrictions (esp for RL) - so I'd suggest one of the following three rewordings: Note that each of the profiles is a (strict) syntactic subset of OWL 2's syntax, but none of the profiles is a subset of each other [[i.e. since syntactically OWL DL and OWL Full are same thing, why bring up the issue]] or Note that each of the profiles is a (strict) syntactic subset of OWL 2 DL and none of the profiles is a subset of another. We note that OWL RL is expected to be used primarily with OWL Full semantics, the others with OWL DL. [[which is clear, but I suspect controversial]] or just say None of these profiles is a subset of another [[and avoid the whole issue]] I'm sorry, but I do consider the quoted line above to a problem, and one I cannot ignore.... -Jim H. On Aug 4, 2009, at 6:42 AM, Ian Horrocks wrote: > This seems like a good compromise. > > I have made the relevant changes. The diff is: > > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Profiles&diff=25048&oldid=24645 > > Regards, > Ian > > > On 4 Aug 2009, at 10:59, Uli Sattler wrote: > >> >> On 3 Aug 2009, at 21:51, Pascal Hitzler wrote: >> >>> I would really stick to the real/historic explanation (EL family). >> >> we could also add "which is called EL because it is a *l*anguage >> (or *l*logic) that only provides *e*xistential quantification of >> variables."? Cheers, Uli >> >>> I understand that it's not directly helpful, but at least it >>> becomes clear that there is some reason to it - and in case >>> somebody wants to read up on it on the DL literature, he's not >>> lost in the DL acronyms ... >>> >>> In fact I'll add this to the primer as soon as the wiki is >>> accessible again (it currently seems to be down...) >>> >>> Pascal. >>> >>> >>> Sandro Hawke wrote: >>>>> I certainly see no problem with adding some minor explanatory text >>>>> along these lines. >>>> It seems good to me, too, except for the EL explanation. The >>>> reference >>>> to EL++ doesn't help anyone. (If you know about EL++, you don't >>>> need >>>> the explanation; if you don't know about EL++, then knowing the >>>> association doesn't help.) >>>> So where does the "E" come from? I guess it's from "Existential >>>> Restrictions"... That doesn't help very much here. Maybe we can >>>> propose a mnemonic? "Extensive", "Efficient", "Easy", >>>> "Economical", >>>> "Enormous", "Elephantine"... :-) >>>> Maybe something like: >>>> - The EL profile was orginally named for its use of Existential >>>> restrictions, but for a mnemonic, we note that it supports >>>> Efficient reasoning, even with Enormous ontologies. >>>> ... or something like that. >>>> -- Sandro >>>>> From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk> >>>>> Subject: Re: Explain profile acronyms >>>>> Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 11:40:57 -0500 >>>>> >>>>>> IMHO this is a not completely unreasonable request. I would >>>>>> propose to respond by adding to the Introduction of Profiles: >>>>>> >>>>>> * brief explanations of the acronyms, namely: >>>>>> - The EL acronym reflects the profile's basis in the EL family >>>>>> of description logics [EL++]. >>>>>> - The QL acronym reflects the fact that query answering in >>>>>> this profile can implemented by rewriting queries into a >>>>>> standard relational Query Language. >>>>>> - The RL acronym reflects the fact that reasoning in this >>>>>> profile can be implemented using a standard Rule Language. >>>>>> * the statement "Note that each of the profiles is a (strict) >>>>>> syntactic subset of OWL DL, but none of the profiles is a >>>>>> subset of another." >>>>>> >>>>>> Comments and/or other suggestions? >>>>>> >>>>>> Ian >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Gioele Barabucci <barabucc@cs.unibo.it> >>>>>>> Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:54:08 +0200 >>>>>>> To: public-owl-comments@w3.org >>>>>>> Message-ID: <20090720125407.GA32507@cs.unibo.it> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> could you please document the meaning of the EL, QL and DL >>>>>>> acronyms in >>>>>>> the overview section of owl2-profiles and other OWL 2 documents? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also, could you explicitly state whether an OWL 2 profile is a >>>>>>> strict >>>>>>> subset of another? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Gioele Barabucci <barabucc@cs.unibo.it> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >>> -- >>> PD Dr. Pascal Hitzler >>> pascal@pascal-hitzler.de http://www.pascal-hitzler.de >>> Semantic Web Textbook: http://www.semantic-web-book.org >>> >>> >> > > We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard - John F. Kennedy, Sept 12, 1962 Prof James Hendler http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler Tetherless World Constellation Chair & Asst Dean of IT and Web Science Computer and Cognitive Science Depts Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180 @jahendler, twitter
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 13:21:59 UTC