W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > May 2009

Re: OWL Full Features in QRG

From: Peter F.Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 15:53:52 -0400
Message-ID: <20090520.155352.236414246.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: <baojie@gmail.com>
CC: <schneid@fzi.de>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
I would not formally object to a revised section 4.2.  

I'm not keen on the heading, but I don't have a better suggestion.

peter



From: Jie Bao <baojie@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: OWL Full Features in QRG
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 13:01:10 -0500

> Peter and Michael
> 
> Will you object to replace section 4.2 with the one "Additional
> Vocabulary in OWL 2 RDF Syntax" on the discussion page?
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Talk:Quick_Reference_Guide#Additional_Vocabulary_in_OWL_2_RDF_Syntax
> 
> Jie
> 
> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Peter F.Patel-Schneider
> <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> 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
>>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jie Bao
> http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~baojie
Received on Wednesday, 20 May 2009 19:54:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:12 UTC