Re: draft response for LC comment 26 (a and b)

O.k. +1, as we usually do it:-)

Ivan

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: draft response for LC comment 26 (a and b)
> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 12:01:48 +0100
> 
>>
>> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>> Here is a draft response for all of the comment from Lilly (SS1a and
>>> SS1b).  I put them both together largely because no document changes are
>>> being proposed (except for removing an extraneous word for Syntax, which
>>> I have already done).  
>>>
>>> The response for LC comment 37 could just point to this response.
>>>
>>> peter
>>>
>>>
>>> [Response for LC Comment 26:]
>>>
>>> Dear Susie,
>>>
>>> Thank you for your message
>>>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jan/0033.html
>>> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
>>>
>> This is not the right link! I guess you meant:
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0033.html
>>
>> (comments vs. wg:-)
> 
> Ooops.  Fixed on the Wiki page.
> 
>>> 1/ Concerning OWL 2 Profiles:
>>>
>>> The OWL 2 effort was designed to extend the constructs of OWL to
>>> encompass those that users had asked for, that researchers could
>>> specify, and that implementers had or could implement.  It is thus
>>> definitely the case that OWL 2 is supported by research.  However, the
>>> driving force was much more users and implementers.
>>>
>>> The OWL profiles had a similar genesis.  If the driving force behind the
>>> OWL profiles was primarily research, then there could have been many
>>> more profiles, and the profiles would have had a different focus.
>>>
>>> This is particularly the case for OWL RL.  OWL RL is designed to capture
>>> the essence of several partial implementations of OWL functionality by
>>> means of forward chaining rules.  Previously all that could be said
>>> about these implementations was that they were partial implementations
>>> of OWL.  OWL RL provides a much more complete characterization for
>>> rule-based implementations of OWL.  Yes, there are formal results
>>> underlying OWL RL, but these formal results are descriptive of the
>>> extant implementations instead of being driving forces for the design of
>>> OWL RL.
>>>
>>> OWL EL and OWL QL also do have a formal basis.  However they again are
>>> attempts to capture existing implementation techniques and existing
>>> ontologies.  
>>>
>>> In any case, the OWL 2 profiles are simply there for those who may be
>>> interested taking exploiting desirable characteristics of
>>> implementations of the profiles.  If one does not care about these,
>>> there is no need to consider the profiles at all.
>>>
>>> The OWL WG does not intend to make any changes in response to this
>>> part of your message.
>>>
>> Although I do not disagree with what you write, I wonder whether we
>> should not hold off with this part of the response, until the situation
>> with QL becomes final. I had some comments, Uli is currently in
>> discussion with the DL Lite experts, and that may lead to changes on QL.
>> Maybe those changes will also be influenced by her remark on "very
>> challenging to teach system developers to use new OWL2, in particular,
>> identifying different subsets of OWL2 for developers with limited logic
>> background." This remark certainly came up in the discussions with Uli
>> and the other experts...
>>
>> Ivan
> 
> I don't see that changes to QL are particularly germane here.  They
> might be additional evidence that we are not completely beholden to some
> secret cabal of DL theorists, but there is lots of other evidence
> supporting the WG's independence, particularly related to RL.  I don't
> think that any more is needed to response to this mostly positive
> comment.
> 
> 
> peter

-- 

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