- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:45:44 -0400 (EDT)
- To: bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Aside from having my name at the end, they look fine to me. :-) peter From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> Subject: Fwd: LC comments 18, 19, 59 Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:19:07 +0000 > Uli asked me to forward these draft replies. > > Before sending them, she needs to update the relevant specs with the > fixes, but will do so after or on the trip back from her vacation (which > ends this week). > > If the WG is good with these, then she can do the changes and ship. > > Cheers, > Bijan. > >> ------- >> >> Dear Maurizio, >> >> Thank you for your message >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0014.html >> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts. >> >> Your comment is closely related to the one by Misha (see >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0019.html) >> and Ivan (see http://www.w3.org/mid/49881F19.7040209@w3.org). >> >> The working group has decided to implement the editorial changes and >> will correct the typos, thanks for pointing the out. We have also >> decided to add, to OWL 2 QL, reflexive, irreflexive, & asymmetric >> property axioms. Moreover, we will fix the inaccuracies in the >> complexity table, following suggestions by Misha and discussions with >> you: for data complexity, we will add that OWL 2 QL is in AC_0, i.e., >> queries are first order rewritable and that the taxonomic complexity is >> NLogSpace-complete. Finally, we have decided *not* to add sameAs to OWL >> 2 QL, but to add a small paragraph that explains that, if one wants to >> handle ontologies that are OWL 2 QL plus sameAs, then a preprocessing >> step that materialises the sameAs relation or an extension of the >> rewriting technique that rewrites into recursive queries can be used, >> see http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-02-24#OWL_QL . >> >> Please acknowledge receipt of this email to >> <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should >> suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you >> are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment. >> >> Regards, >> Peter F. Patel-Schneider >> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group >> >> ------- >> >> Dear Misha and Roman, >> >> Thank you for your message >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0019.html >> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts. >> >> Your comment is closely related to the one by Maurizio (see >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0014.html) >> and Ivan (see http://www.w3.org/mid/49881F19.7040209@w3.org). >> >> The working group has decided to implement the editorial changes and >> will correct the typos, thanks for pointing the out. We have also >> decided to add, to OWL 2 QL, reflexive, irreflexive, & asymmetric >> property axioms. Moreover, we will fix the inaccuracies in the >> complexity table, following your suggestions and discussions with >> Maurizio: for data complexity, we will add that OWL 2 QL is in AC_0, >> i.e., queries are first order rewritable and that the taxonomic >> complexity is NLogSpace-complete. Finally, we have decided *not* to add >> sameAs to OWL 2 QL, but to add a small paragraph that explains that, if >> one wants to handle ontologies that are OWL 2 QL plus sameAs, then a >> preprocessing step that materialises the sameAs relation or an extension >> of the rewriting technique that rewrites into recursive queries can be >> used, see http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-02-24#OWL_QL . >> >> Please acknowledge receipt of this email to >> <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should >> suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you >> are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment. >> >> Regards, >> Peter F. Patel-Schneider >> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group >> >> ------- >> >> Dear Ivan, >> >> Thank you for your message >> http://www.w3.org/mid/49881F19.7040209@w3.org >> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts. >> >> Your comment is closely related to the one by Maurizio (see >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0014.html) >> and Misha (see >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0019.html). >> >> The working group has decided to implement the editorial changes and >> will correct the typos, thanks for pointing the out. We have also >> decided to add, to OWL 2 QL, reflexive, irreflexive, & asymmetric >> property axioms. >> >> Finally, we have decided *not* to add sameAs or functional properties to >> OWL 2 QL: >> >> - [sameAs] OWL 2 QL was designed so that any query Q against an ontology >> - whose data (i.e., information about individuals, the classes they are >> - instances of and how they are related via properties) is stored in a >> - relational database DB, can be answered by rewriting the query Q into an >> - SQL query Q1 and then answering Q1 against DB using a standard >> - RDBMs. This property is known to be lost in the presence of sameAs. For >> - the LOD community, we will add a small paragraph explaining that, in >> - order to handle OWL 2 QL plus sameAs, a preprocessing step that >> - materialises the sameAs relation or an extension of the rewriting >> - technique that rewrites into recursive queries can be used, see >> - http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2009-02-24#OWL_QL . >> >> - functional properties can only be added under the so-called unique name >> - assumption, i.e., different names denote different indiviudals. This >> - assumption, together with functional properties, will lead to >> - inconsistencies if an individual has 2 successors w.r.t. a functional >> - property -- a semantics that is suitable for some applications and >> - unsuitable for others. Hence we have chosen to not include functional >> - properties to OWL 2QL. >> >> Please acknowledge receipt of this email to >> <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should >> suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you >> are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment. >> >> Regards, >> Peter F. Patel-Schneider >> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group >> >> >> > > Cheers, > Bijan. peter
Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 19:44:52 UTC