Re: Explain profile acronyms

(it evades me, but) done.

Diff: 
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Primer&diff=25098&oldid=25085

Pascal.

Jim Hendler wrote:
> Pascal -
>  You clearly misunderstood me, the sentence you put in the primer is:
> 
> Each of the profiles presented below is a (strict) syntactic subset of 
> OWL DL, but none of these profiles is a subset of another.
> 
> which is the sentence I am having the problem with! --  the second part 
> of my response was added to this sentence so as to clarfiy - so you've 
> made exactly the change I raised my complaint about...
> 
> My first choice would be to do what Ian did in the profiles document 
> (simply take out the part about syntactic subset and include the second),
> my second choice would be to add a new sentence that fixes the issue 
> that I am having a problem with  (but I agree with Ian that coming up 
> with something everyone would be happy with would be too much work and 
> too major a change)
>  so be good if we could simply go to the change as Ian suggested
> thanks
>  -Jim H.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Aug 4, 2009, at 5:59 PM, Pascal Hitzler wrote:
> 
>> In the primer, the wording is already exactly as the first part of 
>> Jim's  second  suggestion. So no further changes to the primer at this 
>> stage.
>>
>> Pascal.
>>
>>
>> Ian Horrocks wrote:
>>> IMHO this would be a larger and more controversial change than we 
>>> should be making at this stage.
>>> I think that the best solution is the last one suggested by Jim -- to 
>>> simply say that "none of these profiles is a subset of another". I 
>>> have updated the document (and response) accordingly. Hopefully 
>>> Pascal can do the same for the Primer.
>>> Ian
>>> On 4 Aug 2009, at 16:19, Jie Bao wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Jim Hendler<hendler@cs.rpi.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 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]]
>>>>>
>>>> I think the last sentence is important. It would be confusing if we
>>>> just say RL is a syntactic subset of DL, but its reasoning rules are
>>>> in the RDF semantics. It might be bizarre to explain to some
>>>> RDF-minded that why in RL we can't say hasBrother (transitive) and
>>>> hasSister (transitive) are disjoint, or hasBrother is irreflexive, but
>>>> we may still apply RL inference rules to an OWL Full ontology that
>>>> says so.
>>>>
>>>> Jie
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Jie Bao
>>>> http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~baojie
>>
>> -- 
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
PD Dr. Pascal Hitzler
pascal@pascal-hitzler.de   http://www.pascal-hitzler.de
Semantic Web Textbook: http://www.semantic-web-book.org

Received on Wednesday, 5 August 2009 10:22:59 UTC