Re: OWL Full Features in QRG

Hmm.  I had thought that NF&R was expanded precisely to be *the*
user-facing document for people who want to know what is new in OWL 2.
This is why I have been against including a section on new features in
QRG.

peter


From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Subject: Re: OWL Full Features in QRG
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 11:23:40 -0500

> 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 16:28:25 UTC