- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 09:54:18 +0000
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On 15 Feb 2009, at 09:35, Ivan Herman wrote: > > Bijan Parsia wrote: >> On 15 Feb 2009, at 09:17, Ivan Herman wrote: >> [snip] >>> [[[ >>> ... Ie, the situation has _not_ changed compared to OWL 1. >>> ]]] >>> >>> ie, his worries are unfunded. >> >> I hope they are unfunded, but they are definitely unfounded :) >> > > Oops:-) Well, why don't we say they are hopefully (for him) funded but > unfounded:-) Well, I'd like his *work* to be funding, not his unfounded worries :) > >>> If he could live with OWL 1 then he could >>> live easily with OWL 2. That is the essence of what we have to >>> say, the >>> rest is cherry on the cake, in fact... Let us not worry whether he >>> will >>> have to change his toolchain later (eg, for RIF); this is not the >>> subject for a LC comment response in my view... >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Ivan >>> >>> P.S. Jan's systems, based on Prolog, is primarily targeted at OWL >>> Full >>> applications, >> >> Except for some stuff that punning and annotations now covers, I >> don't >> think this is *substantively* true. But an argument for another >> day :) >> > > Sorry. What I meant is: I know that Jan's system is primarily used by > people (at least in the Netherlands) who concentrate on OWL Full-like > applications. What's an OWL Full-like application? To my knowledge, the main OWL Fullism is things like subpropertying rdfs:label, which is not, IMHO, interestingly OWL Full. (I.e., it can be accommodated via punning or via annotationSubPropertyOf). > I did not mean to say that a prolog environment is > inherently OWL Full only. I didn't think that, but I think Jan et al overstate their use of OWL Full per se, or rather, OWL Full features that are not in OWL DL. For example, do they rely on owl:Thing being infinite? (No.) On non- simple roles in number expressions? (I seriously doubt it.) Syntax reflection? (In a sort of trivial way, i.e., Jan uses owl.owl as a kind of bootstrapping, but it's hardly necessary as all that could be replaced with a bit of Prolog.) Existential bnodes in class expressions? (I *really* doubt it...he doesn't use existential bnodes at all, afaik.) Part of the fundamental, ongoing, problems with OWL Full and OWL Full advocacy is that people conflate OWL Full with a style of presentation (triples). This leads to *all* sorts of confusion :( Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Sunday, 15 February 2009 09:54:55 UTC