Re: unhappy responses

perhaps this is just more evidence that the point I raised will  
confuse some folks, and that we need the text thee to reflect the  
design decision, but more importantly that the primer includes a  
discussion that will help DB folks understand what this is -- we had a  
similar battle when we did "inversefunctional" back in OWL 1 -  
everyone knew the name would cause problems, but we couldn't find a  
good alternative, so we made sure the reference and overview made it  
clear what we meant, pointed to that from the more technical docs, and  
it's become one of our more used features
  -JH



On Mar 5, 2009, at 9:53 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> On 5 Mar 2009, at 14:22, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>  
>> wrote:
> [snip]
>> I can see her having a question about this. For instance the top
>> google hit for database keys
>> http://databases.about.com/cs/administration/g/key.htm says:
>>
>>> Definition: A database key is a attribute utilized to sort and/or  
>>> identify data in some manner. Each table has a primary key which  
>>> uniquely identifies records. Foriegn keys are utilized to cross- 
>>> reference data between relational tables.
>>
>> If the key is not functional then the sort order may not be well  
>> defined.
>
> Er... use to sort *or* identify.
>
> Multiple key values can be used to identify in several different  
> ways. For example, if one is doing entity reconciliation. We don't  
> *have* tables, so keys identify *entities* not records.
>
> Similarly, with sort. There is no notion of sorting in OWL, but  
> there are many ways to handle multiple sort keys for an entities  
> (e.g., lowest wins, the entity appears in each position, etc.).  
> These are all well defined. And then of course one could impose  
> functionality.
>
> Again, since OWL is used to model multiple databases in various  
> states and to integrate them, it's important to allow these  
> situations to be represented.
>
>> I think she would have a better argument about our nomenclature being
>> confusing if she could cite authoritative sources that define key
>> properties as functional. Unless someone objects I will follow up  
>> with
>> her along these lines off list.
>
> I think she has agreed that it's a judgement call and our judgements  
> disagree. Thus, I think she has accepted our response. I am very  
> reluctant to have the group debate her on this point.
>
> (If you want to pursue it personally...fine.)
>
> If there's doubt whether she "agrees to disagree" then that's worth  
> a (group) follow up.
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
>

"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would  
it?." - Albert Einstein

Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
Tetherless World Constellation Chair
Computer Science Dept
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180

Received on Thursday, 5 March 2009 15:00:36 UTC