- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:28:19 -0400
- To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
minor typo (aside from Peter on the sig). s/thanks for pointing the out/thanks for pointing them out/ Aside from that I wonder how useful it will be to have a pointer into our meeting minutes. I suggest that we don't include that, but rather send this out as soon as we have the promised paragraph explaining sameAs implementation in QL. I notice that there isn't an action to do this. Is someone willing to take this on? -Alan On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote: > 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. > > >
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 07:28:54 UTC