Re: draft response for LC comment 31

Hi Bijan,

the impression is that (1) the discussion in Issue 111 concentrated on
the issue of signalling DL vs Full semantics and that is where the
sameAs^3 solution came up and (2) Frank's comment is more on the
EL/QL/RL choices. That was touched upon in the discussion in Issue 111
but, as far as I can see and remember, the DL/Full issue took the upper
hand.

Am I completely wrong?

Ivan

(P.S. Shouldn't we enjoy or week end instead?:-)

Bijan Parsia wrote:
> On 14 Feb 2009, at 11:07, Ivan Herman wrote:
> 
>> Peter,
>>
>> I am not 100% convinced by this answer, I think we should have some
>> discussion either on the call or the f2f. Reading through Frank's
>> comments, I do not find it unreasonable to have a dedicated annotation
>> property that indicates the level of ontology which is intended in spite
>> of all the caveats that you describe.
> 
> Uh...we had long, extensive discussions of precisely this. I raised it
> as an issue thinking it would be a nice helpful thing. I came to believe
> that it's a very bad idea, at least given what we know.
> 
>> Of course, tools have to be
>> careful not to believe this mark but it at least opens the door for some
>> reasonable conventions that the community could follow. The fact that
>> some of the datasets/ontologies might be enormous is a compelling
>> argument to have something like that around...
> 
> I don't believe that's remotely compelling. There's all sorts of
> properties about an ontology you may wish to mine or filter on:
> 
>     http://owl.cs.manchester.ac.uk/repository/browser
> 
>> Yes, this could be one of those extra small things that lead to hell,
>> something you referred to at the last meeting. Nevertheless... I would
>> like to have some discussions on this, if possible.
> 
> I object. This is not a "extra small thing that leads to hell". This is
> a feature that was discussed extensively by the working group and rejected:
>     http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/111
> 
> I'm sorry, that Frank  finds the discussion in 111 "unconvincing" is not
> new information sufficient to reopen the issue. We were convinced. If
> Frank wants us to reconsider he must *argue* the case, not merely
> dismiss our discussion.
> 
> Remember I *raised* this; I *championed* this; I became convinced that
> any solution we came up with is unworkable. Prima facie we should
> respect that, and our own process.
> 
> (Note he doesn't raise the issue of imports at all :()
> 
> Furthermore, this is exactly the sort of thing that can be done, at
> lower cost and risk, outside the working group.
> 
> (The OpenCyc example is particularly silly...I don't believe it's
> particularly difficult to do profile checking on it, or on NCI, or on
> SNOMED...again, see the TONES repository.)
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan.

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf