- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:14:35 +0000
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, cgolbrei@gmail.com, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On 16 Feb 2009, at 09:26, Ivan Herman wrote: [snip] > That said, I > think part of the issue is that there is no clear understanding > when QL > could be or should be used as opposed to, say, RL (or EL or the DL > altogether for that matter). Neither the profile document nor any > other Check! http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Primer#OWL_2_EL http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Primer#OWL_2_QL http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Primer#OWL_2_RL > gives any help for that and my understanding is that this is Lilly's > main concern... Yeah, but let's not go overboard. I think it's easy to add too *much* advice. If we believe there will be implementors and users for the various profiles (and I'm convinced), and that they are sensibly and wisely designed (which I'm pretty on board with), *and* we think they are differentiatable (which I also agree with), we should let the market take care of guiding people. After all, the largest determinant, I'd bet, is what tools you have and where the ontology you receive falls. > Profile checkers are very good things to refer to. But those are ad > posteriori tools, Not necessarily. They can be incorporated into an editor. > what we might need to have is some clear, a priori > guidelines for users (not implementers). I very much disagree. We can't possibly do an adequate job for something that is, in general, very situation specific. We run a heavy risk of closing off useful perceptions (viz the complaints that the use cases/examples are all biohealth...that's silly; none of these are *domain specific* and it's strange to conflate applicability for one task as lack of any rationale for any other task). Also, the above is a false comparison. You check the profile of something to know what it is and what tools you can use it with. You *commit* to a profile for tactical or strategic reasons. E.g., I imagine SNOMED-CT will stick with OWL EL because 1) it's expressive enough, and 2) there are a growing number of reasoners which are robustly scalable with respect to it. But it's actually pretty hard to see how we can translate that into useful general advice: "Pick a profile that works for your domain and for which the available tooling is sufficient unto your needs." Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Monday, 16 February 2009 11:16:21 UTC