Re: OWL Full Features in QRG

I won't argue full vs otherwise here since Peter agrees we could fix  
section 4.2 - I do think we need section 4, because many people using  
this won't be starting from scratch, and the primary thing they will  
want to see if what is new in OWL 2 - so I suspect section 4.1 of the  
QRG is going to be very popular.
  -JH


On May 20, 2009, at 12:14 PM, Peter F.Patel-Schneider wrote:

> I fail to see the rationale for including these things in a *Quick*
> Reference Guide, particularly as the document was supposed to be a
> "cheat sheet" to assist in the writing of OWL 2 ontologies.  In
> particular, I would think that a "Quick" Reference Guide should be  
> about
> best current practices, which would strongly argue against including
> this vocabulary.
>
> That said, I would not strongly oppose upgrading and renaming Section
> 4.2 to include the three extra vocabulary members, although my
> preference is, as before, to not have any part of Section 4 in the
> document.
>
> I do not see that there is any information that you have provided that
> would overturn a specific decision of the working group.
>
> peter
>
>
>
> From: Jie Bao <baojie@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: OWL Full Features in QRG (was Re: Issue-104)
> Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 10:54:30 -0500
>
>> WG
>>
>> I have met with RPI AC today and was instructed that RPI would like  
>> to
>> see the additional OWL vocabulary that is only used in OWL 2 Full in
>> QRG. The leading rationale is that the QRG should also serve users  
>> who
>> use those terms, especially from the RDF world, and those who have
>> used them in OWL 1 so that they will not be misled to think those
>> features are deprecated in OWL 2.
>>
>> The Additional Vocabulary in OWL 2 Full (as far as I know) is:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Talk:Quick_Reference_Guide#Additional_Vocabulary_in_OWL_2_Full
>>
>> Jie
>>
>> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>  
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Jie!
>>>
>>> To repeat what I said in the telco concerning ontology properties:  
>>> I would
>>> not mention the term "owl:OntologyProperty" at all in the QRG. I  
>>> would
>>> further treat the "ontology properties" (as they are only called  
>>> in the
>>> RDF-Based Semantics) as "annotation properties", because they are  
>>> called so
>>> in the Structural Spec. (I can see that you have already put them  
>>> in their
>>> own table "Annotation Properties for Ontologies", which looks  
>>> reasonable to
>>> me, but other people may have other opinions.)
>>>
>>> I'm a bit unsure about the other terms. What's the arguments  
>>> against having
>>> them just in the normal tables (not in a separate table), and  
>>> perhaps have
>>> some small marker tagging them as "for compatibility reasons"?
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>> Jie Bao wrote:
>>>
>>>> OK. Since all the response so far are against including RDF
>>>> vocabulary, I'm happy to remove them.
>>>>
>>>> How about just list the 5 OWL terms:
>>>>
>>>> owl:DataRange, owl:distinctMembers, owl:OntologyProperty,
>>>> owl:DeprecatedClass, owl:DeprecatedProperty
>>>>
>>>> And indicate that owl:DataRange is deprecated in OWL 2, but  
>>>> others are
>>>> not.
>>>>
>>>> As to the name of the section, I still prefer "Additional  
>>>> Vocabulary
>>>> in OWL 2 Full" than the alternative proposal of "Compatibility
>>>> Vocabulary", because the later may lead some people to think that
>>>> those terms are not encouraged to use.
>>>>
>>>> Jie
>

"Con un poco de semántica ya se consigue ir muy lejos"

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

Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2009 16:24:26 UTC