- From: Jie Bao <baojie@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 15:36:24 -0400
- To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
- Cc: "Peter F.Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de> wrote: >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Jie Bao [mailto:baojie@gmail.com] >>Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 8:01 PM >>To: Peter F.Patel-Schneider; Michael Schneider >>Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org >>Subject: Re: OWL Full Features in QRG >> >>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_Vo >>cabulary_in_OWL_2_RDF_Syntax >> >>Jie > > Well, since I am asked... > > What would I expect from such a card (I admit that I did not ponder much > about QRG in the past)? Thinking more generally, what I would expect from > other languages (a card for HTML for example), yes, I think as long as it is > technically possible (enough space on the card), I would want to have /all/ > language features mentioned on it, even if they are "rarely used", "legacy" > or even "deprecated". > I agree > Because it is quite possible that I want to / have to use this card when > working with old ontologies. I wouldn't really want to have the "special" > features in a separate section, but rather along with the other features > belonging to the same category. But I would appreciate if there were a > *small* marker placed nearby a feature telling what's special with them. For > example, if a term is deprecated, I would consider this relevant knowledge > for my work, e.g., even if I were required to leave the old term in the > ontology for the moment, I won't add additional occurrences, and could plan > for a future redesign. > That may be applicable to owl:distinctMembers, owl:DeprecatedClass and owl:DeprecatedProperty. For owl:DataRange and owl:OntologyProperty, the situation may be different: rdfs:Datatype has been used in too many places, giving the alternative owl:DataRange syntax for each of its occurance maybe unnecessary; for owl:OntologyProperty, that would be quite confusing if we list the 3 OP both as OP and Annotation Properties. > Such a card is good for learning by doing: One looks something up once or > twice when one stumbles over it, and afterwards one knows about it and its > special aspects, but still have the helpful card around, if one forgets > about it again. But then it would be un-helpful if some terms were not > mentioned in the card. > Agreed > So to summarize: I would keep the terms in, and even along with the other > terms (no separate section), but with some marker ("D" = "deprecated" for > DataRange, "L" = "legacy" for most others, perhaps really "R" = "RDF-Based > Semantics" for OntologyProperty (not clear on this)). > Seen discussion above. The proposed markers, there are also problems: for "L" - if a term is not officially deprecated, its status is not really "legacy" in a formal way; for "R" - the problem is ontology properties are treated as annotation properties in OWL 2 DL, that's they are not purely only available in RDF-based semantics. There is a side issue not related to QRG: if the use of "owl:OntologyProperty" is only an OWL 2 Full feature, does that mean all OWL 1 DL ontologies in the RDF syntax that use "owl:OntologyProperty" or a non-predefined "owl:OntologyProperty" (predefined ones will be annotation property) will be OWL 2 Full ontologies? > Michael > > -- > Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider > Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE) > Tel : +49-721-9654-726 > Fax : +49-721-9654-727 > Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de > WWW : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider > ======================================================================= > FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe > Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe > Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959 > Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe > Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor, > Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer > Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus > ======================================================================= > > -- Jie Bao http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~baojie
Received on Thursday, 21 May 2009 19:36:59 UTC